Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." -- Ford Prefect, _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

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) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<kOM4K.129847$WZCa.85163@fx08.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29979&group=comp.theory#29979

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.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) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 350
Message-ID: <kOM4K.129847$WZCa.85163@fx08.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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:57:23 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 21256
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:57 UTC

On 4/10/22 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the input defines the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to provide any evidence to the contrary),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the above can be applied to any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your
>>>>>>>>>>>> own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off
>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single
>>>>>>>>> detail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that.
>>>>>>>> Tell us how you would determine that the result that a
>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would
>>>>>> mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider
>>>>>> Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it
>>>>>> shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to
>>>>> any
>>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>>>>
>>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one
>>>> potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is
>>>> one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and
>>>> which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating
>>>> halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another
>>>> simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports
>>>> halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because
>>>> it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>>
>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
>>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
>>> the decision tree.
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>
>>> When 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⟩
>>>
>>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
>>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
>>> non-halting.
>>
>> Now you're the one getting off topic.  We were talking about how to
>> determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the
>> correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
>>
>> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting,
>> and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and
>> reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect
>> because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>
>
> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29980&group=comp.theory#29980

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:57:45 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:57:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1fb117c19e61c097fa7e1b2048e0216d";
logging-data="25017"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ErqdB4qKZ9qU7+hVH5hnq"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7iLPM4JqVOtuiPzzRCnPKaNb9Z0=
In-Reply-To: <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:57 UTC

On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:

> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
> the decision tree.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn

And we're back to the meaningless notation again.

You are truly incapable of learning anything.

André

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<t305k4$odp$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29981&group=comp.theory#29981

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:00:20 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <t305k4$odp$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:00:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1fb117c19e61c097fa7e1b2048e0216d";
logging-data="25017"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I0uhZEJH+tR1nSFH+UNrM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sc3coYpge6jefkt4PbBEmvqXYHw=
In-Reply-To: <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:00 UTC

On 2022-04-10 20:44, olcott wrote:

> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
>

And a CORRECT simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ DOES halt. It's just your broken H
which claims otherwise.

[And the single correct measure is actually whether the computation
represented by the input halts. There's nothing in the definition of
halting which makes reference to simulations. This is just tacking on a
layer of extraneous complexity].

André

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29982&group=comp.theory#29982

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:214:b0:2e1:a8cf:959f with SMTP id b20-20020a05622a021400b002e1a8cf959fmr24769229qtx.300.1649646034045;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:84:b0:63d:4a3d:eb5 with SMTP id
h4-20020a056902008400b0063d4a3d0eb5mr20609954ybs.145.1649646033778; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 20:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
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!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_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>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com> <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com> <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:00:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 23121
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:00 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:47 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:44:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent.. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> >>>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
> >>>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> >>>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
> >>>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
> >>>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >>>>>
> >>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
> >>>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
> >>>> the decision tree.
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>
> >>>> When 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⟩
> >>>>
> >>>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
> >>>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
> >>>> non-halting.
> >>>
> >>> Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
> >>>
> >>> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >>>
> >> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
> >> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
> >
> > That being the case, if X simulates a given input and reports non-halting, and Y simulates the same input and (never leaving UTM mode) reports halting, wouldn't that mean the correctly simulated input would halt?
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29983&group=comp.theory#29983

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:01:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:01:05 -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) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 25
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DAe5Z99bVnS3pu9jUnTYeOPe1ZUDKvWvPmcGSN5VnUNHoJTvR790PH6jrll5fX2zBTDkJATQmd/2NR6!GnSgKzlcxosNwD8S3ZsPGKv3OqMnC0LYKiapQERHoGCiGhHO69qozuFJNfIMfO/MfeIK8i3H/pxZ
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: 2922
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:01 UTC

On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>
>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off
>> of the decision tree.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>
> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>
> André
>

You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<zSM4K.247186$%uX7.128971@fx38.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29984&group=comp.theory#29984

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 374
Message-ID: <zSM4K.247186$%uX7.128971@fx38.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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:01:53 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 22972
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:01 UTC

On 4/10/22 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:47 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:44:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal exists makes you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments whatsoever about your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the input defines the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have yet to provide any evidence to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrary), then the above can be applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own logic applied to a different halt decider)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> off topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not
>>>>>>>>>>> a very
>>>>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single
>>>>>>>>>>> detail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine
>>>>>>>>>> that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>>>>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input
>>>>>>> until it
>>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would
>>>>>>>> mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt
>>>>>>>> decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree
>>>>>>>> that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>>>>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied
>>>>>>> to any
>>>>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one
>>>>>> potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3
>>>>>> is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H"
>>>>>> (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one
>>>>>> simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting,
>>>>>> and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input
>>>>>> and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was
>>>>>> incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
>>>>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed
>>>>> off of
>>>>> the decision tree.
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> When 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⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
>>>>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to
>>>> determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the
>>>> correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
>>>>
>>>> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as
>>>> non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the
>>>> same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X
>>>> was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>>
>>> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
>>> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
>>
>> That being the case, if X simulates a given input and reports
>> non-halting, and Y simulates the same input and (never leaving UTM
>> mode) reports halting, wouldn't that mean the correctly simulated
>> input would halt?
>
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<WVM4K.151764$dln7.6073@fx03.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29985&group=comp.theory#29985

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!feeder5.feed.usenet.farm!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.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) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 300
Message-ID: <WVM4K.151764$dln7.6073@fx03.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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:05:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 17768
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:05 UTC

On 4/10/22 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the input defines the correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with
>>>>>>>>>>> your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't,
>>>>>>>>>> I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own
>>>>>>>> logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm
>>>>>>>> playing head games.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>>>
>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>
>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell
>>>> us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt
>>>> decider gives is correct.
>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>
>
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>
>>
>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean
>> the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y.  So
>> if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X
>> was incorrect to report non-halting?
>
> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29986&group=comp.theory#29986

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:06:24 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:06:20 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 281
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ScQgVn9hK+RHMUU9PeMubF+O6yGIr7dTxhqdU13VeXhm2rt26Zpqiu3HVPdHqEF8REdg5CH0HJrkkV3!L/IyULHYV7/cPNfvGdOsIAXyu/S1M4gzAli8qpx0yymhi6DMT3Awx6qzWY74uEHPNyKZOLBitxhm
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: 21378
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:06 UTC

On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 9:47 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:44:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>>>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>>>>>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>>>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>>>>>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
>>>>>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
>>>>>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
>>>>>> the decision tree.
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When 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⟩
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
>>>>>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>>>
>>>> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
>>>> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
>>>
>>> That being the case, if X simulates a given input and reports non-halting, and Y simulates the same input and (never leaving UTM mode) reports halting, wouldn't that mean the correctly simulated input would halt?
>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>
>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
>> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
> But but that logic, the actual behavior of the actual simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 is non-halting.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29987&group=comp.theory#29987

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4706:b0:69c:2e0f:d01f with SMTP id bs6-20020a05620a470600b0069c2e0fd01fmr225964qkb.631.1649646842915;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b984:0:b0:629:6b2a:8328 with SMTP id
r4-20020a25b984000000b006296b2a8328mr22548054ybg.112.1649646842690; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 20:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_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>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com> <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com> <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com> <HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:14:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 25122
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:14 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 9:47 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:44:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G.. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish.. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H..qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H..qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> >>>>>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> >>>>>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >>>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
> >>>>>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
> >>>>>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
> >>>>>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
> >>>>>> the decision tree.
> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When 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⟩
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
> >>>>>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
> >>>>>> non-halting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >>>>>
> >>>> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
> >>>> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
> >>>
> >>> That being the case, if X simulates a given input and reports non-halting, and Y simulates the same input and (never leaving UTM mode) reports halting, wouldn't that mean the correctly simulated input would halt?
> >> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> >> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
> >>
> >> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> >> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> >> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
> >
> > But but that logic, the actual behavior of the actual simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 is non-halting.
> Back to silly head games? Ha3 was ruled as ridiculously lame far below
> your capacity.
>
> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> > You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> I may ignore what you say after this.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<b3N4K.226953$4JN7.135806@fx05.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29988&group=comp.theory#29988

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx05.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <b3N4K.226953$4JN7.135806@fx05.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:15:22 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3058
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:15 UTC

On 4/10/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for
>>> 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed
>>> off of the decision tree.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>
>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>
>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>

YOU CAN'T, because you keep making the same notational errors.

The statements are MEANINGLES without the conditions, and it has been
pointed out that you are presuming WRONG conditions, that make your H
just a POOP decider instead of a Halt Decider. (Since the conditions are
NOT the equivalent of being based on the halting of H^ applied to <H^>
because you think it can't be that when it is).

FAIL.

You have proven that you can decide on your own POOP.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29989&group=comp.theory#29989

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:19:44 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:19:40 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-rVmtINbb7mBclqyud2wY2zk3DDq9kxD65grxlEdiYqa124aw6B6Sse06ulzhJWpSVGPVWGloPbUvY+W!QWuwS2BZTXJUZhm8XNDQL4ycIY81IilloDE2be4s8jLc/N2nK0UQhwYZseTCl2Ywcve6Vi+2/7a4
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: 3497
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:19 UTC

On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>> I may ignore what you say after this.
>
> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really be "changed".

The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.

You are a smart guy, you can do much better than this.

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29990&group=comp.theory#29990

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr20387495qkh.333.1649647371729;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7c86:0:b0:641:1a51:aa12 with SMTP id
x128-20020a257c86000000b006411a51aa12mr7056150ybc.605.1649647371489; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <k-Sdndtmec3NA87_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>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com> <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com> <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com> <HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com> <k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:22:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 21
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:22 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
> >> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
> >> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
> >> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >> I may ignore what you say after this.
> >
> > Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really be "changed".
> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
>

If we defined another simulating halt decider called Ha7 which simulates for 7 steps before aborting, and we give it <N><5> as input, we can see that it simulates its input to a final state of <N.qy> and reports halting.

Would you then agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>?

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29991&group=comp.theory#29991

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:29:27 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:29:23 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
<k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e7ppzLyN2CraqdcsnHkFrkvp08IkI8sZM82GYHCodoI/zIg5vvVdjrT8QsgUfnZfC7/HsVv6tEskanP!+Md4bY6eI5ivNR80PsNEUdNR6DzytHTY/8MWfNYNmiWDuQajc7g8tdEyb/9R2CSXb8bSPEe5aLwO
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: 4116
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:29 UTC

On 4/10/2022 10:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
>>>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>> I may ignore what you say after this.
>>>
>>> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really be "changed".
>> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
>> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
>>
>
> If we defined another simulating halt decider called Ha7 which simulates for 7 steps before aborting, and we give it <N><5> as input, we can see that it simulates its input to a final state of <N.qy> and reports halting.
>
> Would you then agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>?

OTHERWISE ITS WRONG
A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
has proof that this simulation would never end.

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<CgN4K.65191$Kdf.4629@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29992&group=comp.theory#29992

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!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!fx96.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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
<k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <CgN4K.65191$Kdf.4629@fx96.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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:29:41 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4161
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:29 UTC

On 4/10/22 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim
>>>> that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the
>>>> ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't
>>>> make sense.
>>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this
>>> criteria:
>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>> I may ignore what you say after this.
>>
>> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really
>> be "changed".
>
> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
>
> You are a smart guy, you can do much better than this.
>
>

So, you are right because you are too dumb to see the error in your decider?

It can be shown that for ANY version of your decider H, that goes N
units of simulation of <H^> <H^>, and aborts and decides that its is
non-halting, you can create another decider based on basically the same
algorithm, but which waits a bit longer, that when that modified decider
looks at the exact same input as your H (so it looks at that H's H^, not
its own) that this decider can simulate the input to a final state
because it sees the original H aborting its simulation and going to H.Qn
and the whole simulation reaches a final state.

THAT PROVES, by your own defintion, that the input is HALTING, and thus
the original H was wrong because it aborted too soon because it didn't
have 'good enough' proof that the input was non-halting.

The only version that you can't do this to is a version that ends up
never aborting its simulation, and that version fails by never answering.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<4af3cb2e-ca9c-44ca-8201-450ce92d32f0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29993&group=comp.theory#29993

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bc1:0:b0:42c:3700:a6df with SMTP id t1-20020ad45bc1000000b0042c3700a6dfmr25786057qvt.94.1649647926640;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:32c3:0:b0:641:4d40:3065 with SMTP id
y186-20020a2532c3000000b006414d403065mr2486088yby.403.1649647926440; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 20:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com> <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com> <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com> <HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com> <k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com> <sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4af3cb2e-ca9c-44ca-8201-450ce92d32f0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:32:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 28
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:32 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:29:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 10:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
> >>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
> >>>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
> >>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>>> I may ignore what you say after this.
> >>>
> >>> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really be "changed".
> >> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
> >> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
> >>
> >
> > If we defined another simulating halt decider called Ha7 which simulates for 7 steps before aborting, and we give it <N><5> as input, we can see that it simulates its input to a final state of <N.qy> and reports halting.
> >
> > Would you then agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>?
> OTHERWISE ITS WRONG
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> has proof that this simulation would never end.

Then you would agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>?

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<K8adnVdCT4VAPs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29994&group=comp.theory#29994

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:43:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:43:21 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
<k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>
<sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4af3cb2e-ca9c-44ca-8201-450ce92d32f0n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <4af3cb2e-ca9c-44ca-8201-450ce92d32f0n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <K8adnVdCT4VAPs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8y3yuvshSGUGwFyoN3dQTMs9W7sgu14Ck8DkH1sc3KIbX1Tl2JCY94Tq4rZDQuRXkS+H/OjoTb8D0Zz!rwWL6/OLmMjo0RKcXFDCV+GqSpYs/WZRTra8teEIK9IwvnBOCJVORYAk7QfKsv3RelVTbu0byxH+
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: 4444
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:43 UTC

On 4/10/2022 10:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:29:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 10:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
>>>>>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>> I may ignore what you say after this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really be "changed".
>>>> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
>>>> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we defined another simulating halt decider called Ha7 which simulates for 7 steps before aborting, and we give it <N><5> as input, we can see that it simulates its input to a final state of <N.qy> and reports halting.
>>>
>>> Would you then agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>?
>> OTHERWISE ITS WRONG
>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>
> Then you would agree that

Talking about these things is a waste of time. You aim at rebuttal yet
because what I am saying is true all rebuttals are fruitless.

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<IrednVZRV_GSOs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29995&group=comp.theory#29995

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:57:02 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:56:59 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
<k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>
<sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4af3cb2e-ca9c-44ca-8201-450ce92d32f0n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <4af3cb2e-ca9c-44ca-8201-450ce92d32f0n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <IrednVZRV_GSOs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 41
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hA69U96juLept07Qcq23Myq6thShp2JiNGvzotV9E2Ys2/4n/tNazzxM24yAWU4U7WCIuPBeqxTuNK8!9jvoor9Kkz2wMzfBmaoqw/WMs2xE1Lb/hHO9oIBzsKX0RXcHGt8Px8VcBy8wDFt0UM63t1wNDvnH
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: 4483
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 03:56 UTC

On 4/10/2022 10:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:29:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 10:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider" doesn't make sense.
>>>>>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this criteria:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>> I may ignore what you say after this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't really be "changed".
>>>> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
>>>> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we defined another simulating halt decider called Ha7 which simulates for 7 steps before aborting, and we give it <N><5> as input, we can see that it simulates its input to a final state of <N.qy> and reports halting.
>>>
>>> Would you then agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>?
>> OTHERWISE ITS WRONG
>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>
> Then you would agree that

If it isn't in this category I am not discussing it:
A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
has proof that this simulation would never end.

--
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) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29996&group=comp.theory#29996

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:11:38 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:11:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1fb117c19e61c097fa7e1b2048e0216d";
logging-data="15087"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DiTtj8aynK0dri+0EDAEi"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:l12rZubYVeOlMD/Kx8d3us3VIWE=
In-Reply-To: <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:11 UTC

On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for
>>> 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed
>>> off of the decision tree.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>
>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>
>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.

I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation you
write above is meaningless without a condition specified.

You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points out
an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the broken
notation?

André

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29997&group=comp.theory#29997

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:15:59 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:15:55 -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) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 50
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QBlUq4jxYA52xKJ1+LWsskGBW/b1Hj8tv2oS5yG6xOP5kJviVlpL8bMkzebF7IR06NAzNYm7Da7F/V1!42xByeHo6b+Fr4cIRyqyGklEiG9N3ZBW/amZWaVJtrZCTFFp/6ggkMRAOasa6vf86QWmRqCrQ7E6
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: 3958
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:15 UTC

On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for
>>>> 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed
>>>> off of the decision tree.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>
>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>
>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>
> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation you
> write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>
> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points out
> an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the broken
> notation?
>
> André

I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
own final state.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never reach
its own final state.

embedded_H correctly rejects its 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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29998&group=comp.theory#29998

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:26:15 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:26:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1fb117c19e61c097fa7e1b2048e0216d";
logging-data="21606"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DYsDokaSi8MIdGTcQFYXp"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qm5QwBb42JRyP0Oh+2glDKT8eAc=
In-Reply-To: <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:26 UTC

On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for
>>>>> 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed
>>>>> off of the decision tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>
>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>
>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation you
>> write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>
>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points out
>> an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the broken
>> notation?
>>
>> André
>
> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.

I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires learning
to use notation properly so you don't look like an illiterate crank.

> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> own final state.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never reach
> its own final state.
>
> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.

No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

[and once again you're mixing H and embedded_H -- use one or the other
conistently].

André

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29999&group=comp.theory#29999

 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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:32:59 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:32:54 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-MOAqtDUdfsjlPVNre2JUyD6CveaB5f6tPYPfyaeZZDm4ff5paF80Ed4ytc39GRfcF2Ni9oeYAZBcfnn!9gy6Hkj7LV+XcO5y7eZct2eJNEga5ZjwbqVbhMxyu1g1NR3sfqGe+MF3Br8pw9L3zJSSH1Em/R70
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: 4801
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:32 UTC

On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>
>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>
>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points
>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the
>>> broken notation?
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>
> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires learning
> to use notation properly so you don't look like an illiterate crank.
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>> own final state.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>> reach its own final state.
>>
>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>
> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded in Ĥ
is the only thing that is being examined.

It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

--
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) [ deceitful bastard ]

<t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30000&group=comp.theory#30000

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ deceitful bastard ]
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:50:40 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me> <__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me> <5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me> <TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me> <9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="71a7ad4c61003f09a5670b986dbb72db";
logging-data="32567"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eQkS8TxddFcLJixBvFkfW"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LVhXOICXK6OCF6xq7yMlWSCBz0Y=
 by: Mikko - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:50 UTC

On 2022-04-10 21:56:38 +0000, olcott said:

> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS INCORRECT.

That is not quite true. Whenever somenthing is claimed there is a
possibility of disagreement. Every definition contains a claim: it
claims that something is defined. But sometimes there is a mistake
in a definition so that in reality nothing is defined.

Mikko

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<ANT4K.427550$t2Bb.349338@fx98.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30001&group=comp.theory#30001

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!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!fx98.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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7649b8b4-0b1d-4965-9f26-539542717848n@googlegroups.com>
<HP-dnXMkYM6tBs7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f0a5bb1e-1ff3-44d1-8d60-71823469b108n@googlegroups.com>
<k-Sdndtmec3NA87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5c5b5cdd-5745-494c-ba5c-cee7b8705e7fn@googlegroups.com>
<sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <sdWdnUQNd_wKPc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <ANT4K.427550$t2Bb.349338@fx98.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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 06:54:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4592
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:54 UTC

On 4/10/22 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 10:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 10:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:06:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I know that you are not so bobble headed that you would forget this:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>> You don't seem to agree with that, which would mean that your
>>>>>> claim that "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input is
>>>>>> the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider"
>>>>>> doesn't make sense.
>>>>> No it would be that you are playing head games and ignoring this
>>>>> criteria:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>> I may ignore what you say after this.
>>>>
>>>> Since Ha3 is defined to simulate for exactly 3 steps, it can't
>>>> really be "changed".
>>> The change is that you acknowledge that you already know how
>>> ridiculously lame and condescending your Ha3 example is.
>>>
>>
>> If we defined another simulating halt decider called Ha7 which
>> simulates for 7 steps before aborting, and we give it <N><5> as input,
>> we can see that it simulates its input to a final state of <N.qy> and
>> reports halting.
>>
>> Would you then agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that
>> input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to
>> reject <N><5>?
>
> OTHERWISE ITS WRONG
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>

So why is yours correct to stop when it doesn't have a correct proof
that the simulation would never end.

Simple example that even YOU have mentioned before. If your H simulates
the input to a given level of recursion before deciding the input is
non-halting is called H, and H^ is the Linz rebutal made from that.

Build a variant HH, that simulates one level more of recursion before
coming to that same ame conclusion.

Run HH applied to <H^> <H^> (ie the input above built on the original H)

This HH will see in its simulation of H^ that the H embedded in this H^
aborting its simulation and halting.

This conclusively proves that H did NOT have an actaul proof that its
input was non-halting, thus H was incorrect in its decision.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<bRT4K.211395$jxu4.195653@fx02.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30002&group=comp.theory#30002

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.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) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <bRT4K.211395$jxu4.195653@fx02.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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 06:58:19 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4161
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:58 UTC

On 4/11/22 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for
>>>>> 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed
>>>>> off of the decision tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>
>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>
>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation you
>> write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>
>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points out
>> an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the broken
>> notation?
>>
>> André
>
> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.

Hard to reach when you think you have something and everyone else sees
that you have made fundamental errors that you refuse to deal with.

You aren't looking for anything mutual, you really just want someone to

>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> own final state.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never reach
> its own final state.
>
> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>
And if embedded_H rejects its input, that input represents a machine
that went to H.qn and halted, so the CORRECLY simulated input will Halt,
so embedded_H was wrong.

The problem is you don't understand some basic words, like CORRECTLY,
which makes your proof a bit of a farce.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30003&group=comp.theory#30003

 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!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx40.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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:01:53 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5108
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:01 UTC

On 4/11/22 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>
>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>
>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points
>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the
>>>> broken notation?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>
>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>
>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires learning
>> to use notation properly so you don't look like an illiterate crank.
>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>> its own final state.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>> reach its own final state.
>>>
>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>
> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded in Ĥ
> is the only thing that is being examined.

And the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> will HALT if the copy of H that
is embedded in H^ aborts its simulation and goes to H.Qn.

Thus

>
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.

Right, and Halting is not the Non-Halting that an H that goes to H.Qn is
claiming.

>
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
>

Right, it is self-evident that H is wrong, since the input doesn't do
what it said it does.

Note, self-evident can be tricky or you can persuade yourself that
something that is wrong is actually true. That gives rise to the errors
like the self-evident truth the Achilles can't pass the Tortoise that
Zeno was able to show 'self-evidently'.

FAIL.

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor