Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know that?


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error or dishonesty ]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
+* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
| `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|   `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
 `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
        +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
        +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ THE KEYolcott
        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
         `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
          `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
           `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
            +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
            |`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dishonesty ! ]olcott
            | `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance? ]olcott
            |  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance? ]olcott
            |   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            |    +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            |    +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            |    |+* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            |    ||+- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ ignoranceolcott
            |    ||+- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            |    ||`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ ignoranceolcott
            |    || `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evidentolcott
            |    ||  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evidentolcott
            |    ||   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evidentolcott
            |    ||    `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evidentolcott
            |    |`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            |    `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]olcott
            +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ error orolcott
            `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignoranceolcott
             `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
              `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               |`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               | `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               |  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               |   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               |    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               |     +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fireolcott
               |     +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fireolcott
               |     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fireolcott
               |      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fireolcott
               |       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fireolcott
               |        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance orolcott
               |         `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance orolcott
               +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               |`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott
               `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy doubleolcott

Pages:123
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7803&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7803

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:22:25 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:22:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 131
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8chGSUziTEZROPNEhwnPVHQp3ziQ0iS5EvQ9ZaGRKAUvNdJx900o4w71cumHUuapfkvMiLgTuJ4Bgwu!gHSU4shU+JpjeSca9XfIBExWyPBdxmgTVd82dVHkWZjhTrOap4MDTf9U9yhshYleQS2QhvNsA6ow
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: 7543
 by: olcott - Tue, 1 Feb 2022 15:22 UTC

On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you either
>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its actual
>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>
>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>
>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>
>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>
>>> AGREED?
>>>
>>
>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>
>
> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.

The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
final state. My definition only includes the latter.

The halting problem does not bother to mention the requirement that
because all halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
computing the mapping from their finite string inputs to an accept or
reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by this input.

The halting problem does not specifically examine simulating halt
deciders, none-the-less the behavior of a correctly simulated machine
description is known to be equivalent to the behavior of the direct
execution of this same machine.

Since a simulating halt decider is merely a UTM for simulated inputs
that reach their final state when a simulating halt decider correctly
determines that its simulated its input cannot possibly reach its final
state this is complete proof that this simulated input never halts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<stbrfl$5vh$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7804&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7804

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:43:15 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <stbrfl$5vh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:43:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="28983ca16e79dc928ce542fd236fedda";
logging-data="6129"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VlayxDEw5NJZ8tBhfFYNa"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:satmhDzKXJZzn8ePi+1boCFjAEM=
In-Reply-To: <493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:43 UTC

On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>
>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>
>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.
>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>
> Sounds like a NDTM.
>
> The Halting Problem has a definite, commonly recognized meaning. It refers to a
> real machine, no ambiguity, no one can change it, not even Linz.
> Your halt-problem is absolutely certain not Linz's, or of any? textbook.
> Your claim contradicts experimental truth. Otherwise, show your x86utm operating
> system proof. I guess you would say xxx thousands pages, I believe there are
> only few lines are yours. Show your codes.
>

You did not even read what I said before you claimed that it was
incorrect. The general principles that I outlined below directly apply
to the actual Linz proof:

If I am incorrect in anything that I said below then the specific error
could be pointed out.

>> The halting problem does not bother to mention the requirement that
>> because all halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
>> computing the mapping from their finite string inputs to an accept or
>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by this input.
>>
>> The halting problem does not specifically examine simulating halt
>> deciders, none-the-less the behavior of a correctly simulated machine
>> description is known to be equivalent to the behavior of the direct
>> execution of this same machine.
>>
>> Since a simulating halt decider is merely a UTM for simulated inputs
>> that reach their final state when a simulating halt decider correctly
>> determines that its simulated its input cannot possibly reach its final
>> state this is complete proof that this simulated input never halts.
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>> Arthur Schopenhauer


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7805&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7805

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:37:09 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:37:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 134
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-I3lM+Uzeyjz8chBi9Q/Vf4FotyYPRHJ4cKVXBPUpY/6O8o3NL/ce8xtK/Pfh5a7Pg02YDNRHQewCwhM!CFsakkJJrjcMFG0wbIKx05WT72yBrnI1JBYxxAkrSV4Xff7H+a+aicX7q6WmnBOeoDy2alL5/biA
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: 7757
 by: olcott - Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:37 UTC

On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>
>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>
>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.
>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>
> Sounds like a NDTM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine

It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it reaches
its own final state. People not very familiar with this material may get
confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running because its
simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not typically
specified in most halting problem proofs.

computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7807&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7807

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:36:31 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 15:36:29 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 163
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0rIU5G8oVY6Nz8zOgO4dfeHkkIItCiVl7cogLDGHdRTlGHEaf6i44YlhNnqixynLvPVQVGcCsUMTtrb!J6/Icj0L24fSKk76/tpoa5rdjGnwKq8FrZbQDppaZ/AOXVt/cc664YF6xAB+c2aUDPnAuG8SpYCD
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: 9205
 by: olcott - Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:36 UTC

On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.
>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>
>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it reaches
>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this material may get
>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running because its
>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not typically
>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>
> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?

I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that understands
the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote memorization.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ ignorance about halt deciders ]

<stcg7i$smd$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7808&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7808

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ ignorance
about halt deciders ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:37:19 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 202
Message-ID: <stcg7i$smd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad>
<st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me> <ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fdb754f4-217f-4c2e-83da-40ee7448f79an@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 23:37:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f670614518067427e06fab8438127b75";
logging-data="29389"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/yiHguWgaJHlxcutUAXJU"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fJn89XVuS1oCMhMxtisX7UMrCh4=
In-Reply-To: <fdb754f4-217f-4c2e-83da-40ee7448f79an@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Tue, 1 Feb 2022 23:37 UTC

On 2/1/2022 4:25 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 06:19:04 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it reaches
>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this material may get
>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running because its
>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not typically
>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that understands
>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote memorization.
>>>>
>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start state.
>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test, I forget which posts it is.
>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words are meaningless.
>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt deciders that
>> no one else here seems to know.
>>
>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a decider that it
>> must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept of reject state on
>> the basis of the actual behavior specified by these inputs.
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> There is no 'actual TM' until you it into a TM simulator,
> otherwise all empty talks.
> (I would expect to see you 'reinterpret' again)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<jrWdnZmv2oZ9UWT8nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7809&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7809

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 18:14:24 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:14:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7OjKJ.2231$Lbb6.295@fx45.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <7OjKJ.2231$Lbb6.295@fx45.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jrWdnZmv2oZ9UWT8nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 216
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XsLlKl0NBrifLRgsyRP4vJ1sf+e4BtXJ70qrPOF5pop/KPf/7NifjMb1k1ZAD57gwHG4zV/EGtd5BRT!hf4GUd8fZjh/cxhdwOYG9w8Gp4DnwN3PC/qSB5vOQJIHUnHzyjlBPaQXV0+wltNVza/tcy9t/vM3
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: 11106
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:14 UTC

On 2/1/2022 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> either have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted
>>>>>>>>>>>> to methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its
>>>>>>>> actual inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>
>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>
>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.
>>
>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>
>
> No, it is NOT 'Vague', a machine will EITHER stop running because it
> will reach a final state, or it can NEVER reach such a state.
>
> Please show a machine that doesn't reach its final state but also
> doesn't run forever?
>
> You seem to think that it is possible for a machine to be in some middle
> state.
>
> Please provide an example of such a machine.
>

A simulated machine description that specifies an infinite sequence of
configurations stops running yet never halts when its simulation has
been aborted.

> Note, the definition is stated the way it is because a simulator that
> aborts its simulation does NOT indicate either of the cases and does not
> provide evidence of the Halting state of a computation.
>

Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (An answer of "no" means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts).

>> The halting problem does not bother to mention the requirement that
>> because all halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
>> computing the mapping from their finite string inputs to an accept or
>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by this input.
>
> But if they do not compute the mapping per the definition, they are NOT
> 'Halt Deciders', that is your problem, what you are doing is trying to
> define a POOP decider can call it a Halt Decider.
>

You keep erroneously believing that embedded_H computes the mapping from
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior of Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ rather than the actual behavior of its actual input.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<XqCdnXK1E9aPUmT8nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7810&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7810

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 18:23:46 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:23:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <57kKJ.670$Tr18.460@fx42.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <57kKJ.670$Tr18.460@fx42.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XqCdnXK1E9aPUmT8nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 158
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-uiBDnEh/RBWfKgc3oP9eUBXm03mPy38Yrgw/us0w7S6d/Lf9xWi6WEx2Z6h9Jy07DamSPSWLs1Qwy1m!ej2yDSjUfc7pQsdvucp3BqVQ1LpqZlopdAX3g3vQiYpWnUuaQiwhEE2kthZBswlzGDqlFcfRIr85
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: 8897
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:23 UTC

On 2/1/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its
>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting
>>>>> Problem.
>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>
>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it reaches
>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this material may
>> get confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running
>> because its simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not
>> typically specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>
>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>
>>
>
> And the point that you seem to miss is that the Turing Machine doesn't
> stop just because some simulation of its representation gave up on
> simulating it.
>
> And actual Turing machine will continue to run until it his a final
> state or els it will continue to run for an unbounded number of steps.
>
> Non-Halting can only be show by showing that the actual running of the
> machine will continue for an unbounded number of steps, not just that
> there is some N that it doesn't stop in.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]

<k5Kdndk6xuzpTGT8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7811&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7811

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 18:33:55 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:33:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ key essence ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <BakKJ.671$Tr18.541@fx42.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <BakKJ.671$Tr18.541@fx42.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <k5Kdndk6xuzpTGT8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 185
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RT15nZGN4W1v69NRPVKQ6ZWsPJWmh3BmeaSZRvOli3ib9j5J173AtgVem49URkn4502D/tZJx8E13Pz!MfZ/bAlmnHDUJxZ00IsnvcVyYCv/f0ZuoqeNzSAcQyDEYy5Txfg/G04FidlHFLR52Pm6qnUkaC65
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: 10059
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:33 UTC

On 2/1/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to
>>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition"
>>>>>>>>>> Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting
>>>>>>> Problem.
>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it
>>>>>> includes
>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>
>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it reaches
>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this material may
>>>> get
>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running because its
>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not typically
>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>>>> enters
>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>
>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>
>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that understands
>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote memorization.
>>
>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start
>> state. A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?  (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>
>
> But unless embedded_H actually IS a real UTM, that doesn't matter.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ ignorance about halt deciders ]

<E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7812&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7812

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 19:03:55 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:03:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ ignorance
about halt deciders ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad>
<st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me> <ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 223
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BWNnufbMgII+e2L1VfdrANYX9VwUt43Iup8OmXjOxOARJpubV7ZAxyMBPp40Kxnl2PHalmQvEt9/Mhb!QRoerMSdZfvMS7CVVnyGlmg56LemaiAkDF0OkjTSSFYo5SMGIVZSgMqFU4QqjdkyWUoNNvfeiIU1
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: 11624
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:03 UTC

On 2/1/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting
>>>>>>>>> Problem.
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot
>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it
>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this material
>>>>>> may get
>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running
>>>>>> because its
>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not typically
>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>>>>>> enters
>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that understands
>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote memorization.
>>>>
>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start state.
>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test, I
>>>>> forget which posts it is.
>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test, I
>>> forget which posts it is.
>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words are
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt deciders
>> that no one else here seems to know.
>>
>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a decider that
>> it must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept of reject
>> state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by these inputs.
>
>
> And the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input <H^> <H^> is EXACTLY the behavior
> of H^ applied to <H^> which does Halt if H goes to H.Qn.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance about deciders ]

<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7813&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7813

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 19:33:35 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:33:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance
about deciders ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<v8udnTw-8aE_4G78nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mIQIJ.34880$%T.27606@fx06.iad>
<2ZqdnX-fD72xnWn8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ol0JJ.27499$541.4855@fx35.iad> <875yq2h2ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<st62tu$f6h$1@dont-email.me> <LCwJJ.50318$gX.12924@fx40.iad>
<UK-dnQx29oAWMmv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 105
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6e57lt0iiRoY2FQ/ZybeV6N8PrhdH5wwut78x3hGHNj8uHO+tXTWfRCDD7hzo6h91MvAmYWmL+Ohpyv!FpW9d4SvLsEz158kMgWK6uuy2AUNe3DjjG42/Q3THwYaBzmj6JQDQBMdrzFWHXkF5zQF/uqHJn3t
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: 6773
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:33 UTC

On 2/1/2022 6:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-01-30 19:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/30/2022 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/30/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff
>>> H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>
>>
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H in the
>> same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H in the
>> same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>> Sum(5,3)
>
> I promised myself I wouldn't involve myself in your nonsense any
> further, but here you've made such a terribly inaccurate analogy that I
> thought I had to comment.
>
> The inputs to a function such as SUM(X, Y) are two REPRESENTATIONS of
> integers. If SUM were a Turing Machine, these would be two strings in
> the alphabet of the TM. if this were a C function, X and X would be
> strings of bits which form the twos complement representation of some
> integer. In neither case would the inputs be actual, mathematical
> integers. C might use the term 'integer' as one of its built in types,
> but C integers are NOT elements of ℤ. They are REPRESENTATIONS of the
> supported subset of ℤ.
>
> So ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H in the same sense that ⟨5⟩ ⟨3⟩ are
> the inputs to SUM.
>
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not the input to embedded_H in the same sense that the actual
> mathematical integers 3 and 5 are not inputs to SUM.
>

We are on the same page so far. (acknowledging when there is agreement
is an essential part of an honest dialogue).

> If your going to make analogies, at least make ones that are accurate.
>
> SUM takes REPRESENTATIONS of integers as its inputs, but it answers
> about the ACTUAL integers described by those representations. To talk
> about the sum of two representations is meaningless. Only actual
> integers have sums.
>
> In exactly the same way, embedded_H takes a REPRESENTATION of some TM
> ⟨Ĥ⟩ as part of its input but it answers about the ACTUAL TM described by
> that input, Ĥ.
> To talk about whether a representation of a TM halts is
> meaningless since only actual TMs, not representations of TMs, can halt.
> The conditions which Richard indicates above (following Linz) are
> therefore the correct ones.
>
> In a previous post which I can't be botherered to find, you claimed that
> when the input to embedded_H is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that embedded_H can only be
> expected to answer about its actual inputs and not its 'enclosing TM'.
>
> Yes, it must answer about its input, but if its input is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩, then
> BY THE DEFINITION OF A HALT DECIDER is must determine whether Ĥ applied
> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

No you are flat out wrong about this. You are wrong because of your
ignorance of how deciders work. Deciders compute the mapping from their
finite string inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the
actual properties of these actual inputs.

Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?

An answer of "no" means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts, and nothing
in the universe can possibly overcome this.

Because all simulating halt deciders are deciders they are only
accountable for computing the mapping from their input finite strings to
an accept or reject state on the basis of whether or not their correct
simulation of this input could ever reach its final state.

embedded_H is only accountable for the behavior of its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
to ⟨Ĥ⟩. embedded_H is not accountable for the behavior of the
computation that it is contained within: Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

> And that computation happens to be the EXACT SAME
> computation as its 'enclosing TM'. So it is answering about *both*.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident truth ]

<D_CdnZ6qbPsHf2T8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7814&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7814

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 19:47:06 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:47:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident
truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad> <st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me>
<st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org> <RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
<E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2ilKJ.5793$t2Bb.4750@fx98.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <2ilKJ.5793$t2Bb.4750@fx98.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <D_CdnZ6qbPsHf2T8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 246
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dOudu191kFYmKIzANY1WcRCZKHqV9fCZSDWohL7TZkB+uATsoSW8/mRvG+P1wJFwx5tsJNBV6HFFJAD!XnPS7WCSUypnCLVAua8NvXRtq882r5OV1iZV35C3bqmwYjxaDxLREd4V6agzTGe8FpCvDdNvoWgp
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: 12756
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 01:47 UTC

On 2/1/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/1/22 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/1/22 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem,
>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it
>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot
>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it
>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this material
>>>>>>>> may get
>>>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running
>>>>>>>> because its
>>>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not typically
>>>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever
>>>>>>>> it enters
>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
>>>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that
>>>>>> understands
>>>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote memorization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
>>>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start
>>>>>> state.
>>>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test,
>>>>>>> I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test, I
>>>>> forget which posts it is.
>>>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words are
>>>>> meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt deciders
>>>> that no one else here seems to know.
>>>>
>>>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a decider
>>>> that it must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept of
>>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by these
>>>> inputs.
>>>
>>>
>>> And the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input <H^> <H^> is EXACTLY the
>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^> which does Halt if H goes to H.Qn.
>>
>>
>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>
> Doesn't matter if embedded_H is not a ACTUAL UTM.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident truth ]

<ydWdnbuAithrdWT8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7815&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7815

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 20:14:14 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:14:12 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident
truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <gIHJJ.29153$541.4042@fx35.iad>
<st91ek$p4g$1@dont-email.me> <st9fn6$60s$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
<E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2ilKJ.5793$t2Bb.4750@fx98.iad>
<D_CdnZ6qbPsHf2T8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<zwlKJ.3364$979a.3158@fx14.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <zwlKJ.3364$979a.3158@fx14.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ydWdnbuAithrdWT8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 273
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-MzbUhCeUNvHIsCGEHMYV94edFUNP8AnfiIeQyNbIXcdxdOOktT4CvOVvC+HjRS2ym3qoVCmPq5R77Ce!VFBzIhPFSJoQ8y44+h+o+gJvEE6bSpArQ4wepQeLOeXKIUCbP3Sl2q6dCcXU8LEModyU8ZZvWQK2
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: 14013
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 02:14 UTC

On 2/1/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/1/22 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/22 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when it
>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this
>>>>>>>>>> material may get
>>>>>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running
>>>>>>>>>> because its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not
>>>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever
>>>>>>>>>> it enters
>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>>>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
>>>>>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that
>>>>>>>> understands
>>>>>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote memorization.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
>>>>>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start
>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>> transition to
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or
>>>>>>>>> test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>> simulation (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or test,
>>>>>>> I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words are
>>>>>>> meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt deciders
>>>>>> that no one else here seems to know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a decider
>>>>>> that it must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept of
>>>>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by
>>>>>> these inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input <H^> <H^> is EXACTLY the
>>>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^> which does Halt if H goes to H.Qn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter if embedded_H is not a ACTUAL UTM.
>>>
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> As soon as embedded_H correctly recognizes this as an infinite
>> behavior pattern:
>>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> Then embedded_H can correctly abort the simulation of its input and
>> correctly transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>
>> The above words can be verified as completely true entirely on the
>> basis of their meaning.
>>
>
>
> Nope, proven otherwise.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7816&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7816

 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 20:37:18 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:37:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<2ZqdnX-fD72xnWn8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ol0JJ.27499$541.4855@fx35.iad> <875yq2h2ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<st62tu$f6h$1@dont-email.me> <LCwJJ.50318$gX.12924@fx40.iad>
<UK-dnQx29oAWMmv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 129
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UbJtn351+gYP6b67mKZxFOdaqv27lELjc3Lp3RzeG8qUvsaBDZ3UHPCDHP0GUVPxmaNWnD3Zmne/bNt!Xir92AVAsQmIie4jTM4nEjz9skEIQobTsUATsS9i3N7c0Oi6Yo7gt2en2q4MMeQNAu0cP8GrSmtZ
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: 8038
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 02:37 UTC

On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 18:33, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 6:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-30 19:05, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2022 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/30/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to H^.Qy/H^.Qn
>>>>> iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H in the
>>>> same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H in
>>>> the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically specified as an input
>>>> to Sum(5,3)
>>>
>>> I promised myself I wouldn't involve myself in your nonsense any
>>> further, but here you've made such a terribly inaccurate analogy that
>>> I thought I had to comment.
>>>
>>> The inputs to a function such as SUM(X, Y) are two REPRESENTATIONS of
>>> integers. If SUM were a Turing Machine, these would be two strings in
>>> the alphabet of the TM. if this were a C function, X and X would be
>>> strings of bits which form the twos complement representation of some
>>> integer. In neither case would the inputs be actual, mathematical
>>> integers. C might use the term 'integer' as one of its built in
>>> types, but C integers are NOT elements of ℤ. They are REPRESENTATIONS
>>> of the supported subset of ℤ.
>>>
>>> So ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H in the same sense that ⟨5⟩ ⟨3⟩
>>> are the inputs to SUM.
>>>
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not the input to embedded_H in the same sense that the
>>> actual mathematical integers 3 and 5 are not inputs to SUM.
>>>
>>
>> We are on the same page so far. (acknowledging when there is agreement
>> is an essential part of an honest dialogue).
>>
>>> If your going to make analogies, at least make ones that are accurate.
>>>
>>> SUM takes REPRESENTATIONS of integers as its inputs, but it answers
>>> about the ACTUAL integers described by those representations. To talk
>>> about the sum of two representations is meaningless. Only actual
>>> integers have sums.
>>>
>>> In exactly the same way, embedded_H takes a REPRESENTATION of some TM
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ as part of its input but it answers about the ACTUAL TM described
>>> by that input, Ĥ.
>>> To talk about whether a representation of a TM halts is meaningless
>>> since only actual TMs, not representations of TMs, can halt. The
>>> conditions which Richard indicates above (following Linz) are
>>> therefore the correct ones.
>>>
>>> In a previous post which I can't be botherered to find, you claimed
>>> that when the input to embedded_H is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that embedded_H can only
>>> be expected to answer about its actual inputs and not its 'enclosing
>>> TM'.
>>>
>>> Yes, it must answer about its input, but if its input is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩,
>>> then BY THE DEFINITION OF A HALT DECIDER is must determine whether Ĥ
>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>
>> No you are flat out wrong about this. You are wrong because of your
>> ignorance of how deciders work. Deciders compute the mapping from
>> their finite string inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis
>> of the actual properties of these actual inputs.
>
> I am perfectly aware of how deciders work and an actual property of ⟨Ĥ⟩
> is that it represents the Turing Machine Ĥ. And a halt decider is
> required to accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if and only if Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>
> In much the same way a TM which performs SUMS might take two input
> strings ⟨x⟩ and ⟨y⟩ and output some third string ⟨z⟩, but specification
> of such a machine would be that it maps ⟨x⟩ ⟨y⟩ to ⟨z⟩ such that x + y =
> z. There are ⟨brackets⟩ around the inputs, but not around the entities
> in the specification.
>
> It *IS* mapping from its inputs to its output, but the mapping is based
> on an operation over the entities which the inputs and outputs
> represent. That's how *all* Turing Machines work.
>

We still seem to agree. (points of mutual agreement are required for
honest dialogues).

>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>
> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.

Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
"I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."

When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence then it
makes much more sense.

Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?

> You apply TMs to inputs.
> You can't apply  a string to a string any more than you can add the
> strings "2" and "3". You can add the integers they represent, but not
> the strings themselves.
>

I said that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is being simulated by embedded_H. That
you cut me off in the middle of the sentence to form you rebuttal seems
ridiculously dishonest. It is like you don't even care that everyone
reading this will know that you are being deliberately deceptive.

It is the case that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correctly simulated by
embedded_H and cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn that embedded_H is correct
to report that its input does not halt.

There is no dodgy double talk way around this.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident truth ]

<vsudneA4J4TAcmT8nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7817&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7817

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 20:41:33 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:41:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident
truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<RqidnSdLIdwH2GX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad> <staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me>
<wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
<E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2ilKJ.5793$t2Bb.4750@fx98.iad>
<D_CdnZ6qbPsHf2T8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<zwlKJ.3364$979a.3158@fx14.iad>
<ydWdnbuAithrdWT8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ZUlKJ.506$Rza5.3@fx47.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ZUlKJ.506$Rza5.3@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <vsudneA4J4TAcmT8nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 295
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iwZC5GrnPI/ZCGcDSU7kIpTy4/1HvU1dcirNw+Oxx91HBNRO6thriGf1JyKE8O7pJcw5A0esIlCEfO5!KEEBv9qzTFOSZNUGxN0NS0IX6pb1eqpK8A0NdvuHTt0FRzJLer9WPiup9onWvMseqbptlCqRUktr
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: 15108
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 02:41 UTC

On 2/1/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/1/22 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/1/22 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/22 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts when
>>>>>>>>>>>> it reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> material may get
>>>>>>>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops running
>>>>>>>>>>>> because its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>>>>>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that
>>>>>>>>>> understands
>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote
>>>>>>>>>> memorization.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the
>>>>>>>>>> Linz
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single
>>>>>>>>>> start state.
>>>>>>>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>> transition to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>>>>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or
>>>>>>>>>>> test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or
>>>>>>>>> test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words
>>>>>>>>> are meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt
>>>>>>>> deciders that no one else here seems to know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a decider
>>>>>>>> that it must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept of
>>>>>>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by
>>>>>>>> these inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input <H^> <H^> is EXACTLY the
>>>>>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^> which does Halt if H goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter if embedded_H is not a ACTUAL UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>
>>>> As soon as embedded_H correctly recognizes this as an infinite
>>>> behavior pattern:
>>>>
>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>
>>>> Then embedded_H can correctly abort the simulation of its input and
>>>> correctly transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>
>>>> The above words can be verified as completely true entirely on the
>>>> basis of their meaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, proven otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> What I said above is true by logical necessity and you simply aren't
>> bright enough to understand this.
>>
>
> Then you can provide a step by step proof of it?
>
>> If X then Y and if Y then Z and X then Z. There is no way around this.
>
> And what are your X, Y and Z?
>
>
>>
>> If embedded_H correctly recognizes that its input specifies non
>> halting behavior then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>> report this
>> non halting behavior.
>
> *IF* it correct recognizes. Since there is no pattern in H's simulation
> of <H^> <H^> THAT IS a proof of non-halting
You must be a liar.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7818&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7818

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 20:57:16 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:57:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <875yq2h2ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<st62tu$f6h$1@dont-email.me> <LCwJJ.50318$gX.12924@fx40.iad>
<UK-dnQx29oAWMmv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tGO+qtcG6AwE5ZOBcatcVvXehAIwPiTMsgY/l/PLwiGGV4cAiu8aWSg/7wTfTS5YgLODxQQaNmLFk8l!HLd7AV+kS9aLnBXfgIXGOSOijPHV/SAc6tIr4oKiRowk4ldL+VQKVkiEtcz+LA0lvWtbu5EAkbmU
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: 3524
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 02:57 UTC

On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>
>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>
>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence then
>> it makes much more sense.
>>
>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>
> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can
> provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.

When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot possibly
reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident truth ]

<KNqdnfmECvWLZGT8nZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7819&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7819

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 21:23:02 -0600
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:23:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident
truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <Kk%JJ.20609$OF3.19827@fx14.iad>
<staa42$dgq$1@dont-email.me> <wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
<E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2ilKJ.5793$t2Bb.4750@fx98.iad>
<D_CdnZ6qbPsHf2T8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<zwlKJ.3364$979a.3158@fx14.iad>
<ydWdnbuAithrdWT8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ZUlKJ.506$Rza5.3@fx47.iad>
<vsudneA4J4TAcmT8nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <uimKJ.4$f2a5.0@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <uimKJ.4$f2a5.0@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <KNqdnfmECvWLZGT8nZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 311
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wbCFF/XUAaeIuGBVEvPO3BOVWxZvdqwHz7AD7ZiZIBxLqm/ZBK6pIYoZ8JYWpZp4ZSXyi0wdPMh43um!Rl7fNwQR9FGC+7fZjZNR1SBNf+Hl13LnbUgLtbukPrN7+AEaRHA48OannSII0toOOtzZErt8foiZ
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: 16412
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:23 UTC

On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/1/22 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/1/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/22 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/1/22 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/22 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting, it includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material may get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running because its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>> understands
>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote
>>>>>>>>>>>> memorization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single
>>>>>>>>>>>> start state.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or
>>>>>>>>>>> test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words
>>>>>>>>>>> are meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt
>>>>>>>>>> deciders that no one else here seems to know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a
>>>>>>>>>> decider that it must compute the mapping from its inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>> accept of reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>> specified by these inputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input <H^> <H^> is EXACTLY the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^> which does Halt if H goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter if embedded_H is not a ACTUAL UTM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As soon as embedded_H correctly recognizes this as an infinite
>>>>>> behavior pattern:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then embedded_H can correctly abort the simulation of its input
>>>>>> and correctly transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above words can be verified as completely true entirely on the
>>>>>> basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, proven otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I said above is true by logical necessity and you simply aren't
>>>> bright enough to understand this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can provide a step by step proof of it?
>>>
>>>> If X then Y and if Y then Z and X then Z. There is no way around this.
>>>
>>> And what are your X, Y and Z?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If embedded_H correctly recognizes that its input specifies non
>>>> halting behavior then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>> report this
>>>> non halting behavior.
>>>
>>> *IF* it correct recognizes. Since there is no pattern in H's
>>> simulation of <H^> <H^> THAT IS a proof of non-halting
>> You must be a liar.
>>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>     Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>     Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>     Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>
> But if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn aften N steps, then it is also true that the
> computation H1 <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn after N steps and the pattern ends.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7820&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7820

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:44:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<UK-dnQx29oAWMmv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f670614518067427e06fab8438127b75";
logging-data="9201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6ZYO2EF04QByFZzfGK4/u"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3RwLfqcaF4d5PSaLp+PmWNP/rec=
In-Reply-To: <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:44 UTC

On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>
>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>
>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you
>>> can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>
> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place where
> you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not more, nit
> picky.
>

It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the gist
of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it exactly
according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid any
attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.

>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct
>> to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>
> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse. "Its
> simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the

Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.

If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to transition to
Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.

In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never halts.

In even simpler terms if you see an actual dog then you are correct to
say: "I saw a dog", even if everyone else in the universe disagrees.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7821&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7821

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:59:54 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:59:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f670614518067427e06fab8438127b75";
logging-data="12968"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bPk/Oi6ggHYPEa+pO5+wJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v3KOs2TFMZthwGcgLTZ0mTiQKKY=
In-Reply-To: <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:59 UTC

On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>
>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>
> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a UTM
> *at* *all*.
>
> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>
> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩

embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a finite
sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about anything
else in the universe.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7822&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7822

 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:20:20 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:20:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 114
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8OzI8UYS91CJtX3pY67b8Y4P/Ou3U4D7ahytZTOD6A8Qb9UVDqfTzi423/K/RthO7dKROKwEIkXCRGw!yqRgzIfiXB8wD+tKII8oturn6Y4GCqkSUL63wlaDrOHfrez9t7ODnuBZ9yW5HdSJFjQYlKwe5MuP
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: 7373
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20 UTC

On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or
>>>>> you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot
>>>>> simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>
>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>> more, nit picky.
>>>
>>
>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the gist
>> of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it
>> exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never
>> paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>
>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>>>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>>>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily
>>>> correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input
>>>> never halts.
>>>
>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>> i.e. the
>>
>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>
> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It takes
> as its input a finite string which represents that Turing Machine/Input
> pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.
>

It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.

The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the finite
string machine description specifies a finite or infinite sequence of
configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
behavior of the simulated finite string.

Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines not
having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.

>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>> refute this.
>
> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
> both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>

The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.

> What you're doing is essentially the same thing as if I produced a SUM
> TM which, given ⟨3⟩ and ⟨2⟩ as inputs, produced the output ⟨6⟩, and me
> claiming that it is correct because it isn't responsible for adding the
> integers, only the finite strings which SUM was given as inputs, and
> that my algorithm correctly determines that SUM ⟨3⟩⟨2⟩ is ⟨6⟩ despite
> the fact that SUM 3 2 is 5.
>
>> In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
>> halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never
>> halts.
>
> Inputs don't halt or not halt. Only the TM/input pair which the input
> *describes* can halt or not halt.
>
> André

Inputs to simulating halt deciders are already implicitly specified to
be simulated. We could get verbose and say the simulated inputs to
simulating halt decider:

In much simpler terms if the simulated input to simulating halt decider
H never halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input
never halts.

You and Richard are saying that there are exceptions to this logically
necessary truth. This is like saying that when a dog bites you on the
leg it might not have been a dog and it might not have been your leg
even though it is stipulated that a dog bit you on the leg.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7823&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7823

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:31:03 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:31:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 54
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mBDOEMgDKb7efyo+1iuT6mEjfk13oU3icIMl11wxgs7Gib0TdhtX/k59BHDJ9WyTMOP/r5G+dHiEKQ2!RUG0EP8QKRUC68nqrc4aFGOK0TDIsSCbP4JAoAAVdnEYtQhdOvak/XStIiCU+ofNRduVQdWgoqbA
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: 4180
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:31 UTC

On 2/1/2022 10:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>>>
>>> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a
>>> UTM *at* *all*.
>>>
>>> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>>>
>>> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> And in a previous post you accused *me* of snipping part way through?
>

You snipped in the middle of the sentence and then said that the
sentence didn't make sense. I snip down to the most salient point.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulated input would never reach
its final state ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn on the basis of matching this infinite pattern:

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

>> embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a
>> finite sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about
>> anything else in the universe.
>
> Which again means that it is not a UTM since that is *not* what a UTM
> determines.
>

It is a UTM that has extra features added.

> Being a halt decider and being a UTM are mutually exclusive.
>
> André
>
For all inputs that reach their final state the behavior of embedded_H
is equivalent to a UTM.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7824&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7824

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 19:41:36 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 19:41:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 97
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-OZHmIAlQ6re+P5/bCr05w4ggPrdCokcanSW/jiOOA4NpitXq4NWN8bS0/ovIWQ63Ftw8frM0ZPOadRY!4fTEQi//C1FvqIx3kKb32eMv7fSpFx9rWZiRm3iESUbz9nx1uMFJmjxJndOnRQ1gBu422hHQ0qbR
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: 6762
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 01:41 UTC

On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or
>>>>>>> you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot
>>>>>>> simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>>>> more, nit picky.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it
>>>> exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He
>>>> never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>
>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>> and embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input
>>>>>> cannot possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its
>>>>>> simulated input never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>>>> i.e. the
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>>> simulating a finite string.
>>>
>>
>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>
>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this is
>> the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>
>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines not
>> having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>
>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>>>> refute this.
>>>
>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
>>> both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>
>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>
> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
state (here is the part that you two don't understand):

On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7825&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7825

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 20:31:56 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:31:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IK6btqx9XVRk3sb7NWZY+dHBFfwnWM8TUGCgWzeulnqsu2QPKPjkYa8hnm+qN4w3er2oQkCqzf2OJ8h!0AgKD7KU3UEIJ/dQJBLGJzG7oolYc//7Gux0Zajb4T5NAjJaYHwe7UWmiyipdrdkJDgXLRfztmRl
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: 7356
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 02:31 UTC

On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You
>>>>>>>>> cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>>>>>> more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>>>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say
>>>>>> it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did.
>>>>>> He never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>>>> and embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input
>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its
>>>>>>>> simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>>>>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>>>>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>>>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>>>>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>>>>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>>>>> simulating a finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>
>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this
>>>> is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>
>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines
>>>> not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>>>
>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>>>>>> refute this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied
>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>
>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
>> state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>
>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>
>
> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,

These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7827&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7827

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 22:50:06 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:50:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b612f85aae1580d8a6f89a8f8f6d5c9f";
logging-data="17107"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TZ0aUQ6hmrAm3Fk1L7teH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GHiqHYhivmpyR1o7LK3vkRLnh7U=
In-Reply-To: <M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:50 UTC

On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> did not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben always did. He never paid any attention to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which represents
>>>>>>>>>>> that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>> to talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs
>>>>>>>>>> is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H
>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept
>>>>>>>> or reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would
>>>>>>> do,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that a
>>>> black cat is not a cat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description' has
>>> an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
>> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>
>> Here is what it actually does:
>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>
> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its simulation
> and thus never give an answer.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7828&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7828

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 23:24:41 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 23:24:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 165
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zjK+pBwuuBOlC5Df4KvYAniQQR2ts4MsATCRL4hrk2cPpWdPw/4vALhfgOhRVY8Jndx7QYBp0WNIeJu!kuI+YjmcsH64L2Nncsymtha0DJ6hogrbPmdoAC6069QoEl/vKoQzLrcAJvNQfLkKqUXteUZ/vKor
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: 10419
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 05:24 UTC

On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any place where you attempt to publish your results will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say it exactly according to conventions. The is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what Ben always did. He never paid any attention to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept
>>>>>>>>>> or reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the
>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that
>>>>>> a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description'
>>>>> has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>>>>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
>>>> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>
>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>
>>
>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>
>>
>
> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>
That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number of
steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above are
plenty enough for it to be recogized.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ]

<S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7830&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7830

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 17:54:27 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:54:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 221
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3IpGupjG0xVCouRZ6ZL8S5N10gaAZakEcynXIh9iA5oWXdVDaa3HSsNymr/Ui334PHsE6BL3vBDs5+M!5tZxqUahHsGa8VY0KRP/59FZq6W45Q1KdiJ+Ai/lv5IRXJIGD5DxUI1xKqOrM9JLJ7aqgYfvnhP9
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: 12709
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:54 UTC

On 2/3/2022 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/22 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And any place where you attempt to publish your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly reach any final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the finite string machine description specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state (here is the part that you two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified
>>>>>>>>>>>> by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by this machine description it is just like
>>>>>>>>>> saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>> description' has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must
>>>>>>>>> match the actual behavior of the machine whose description it
>>>>>>>>> is simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>
>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown
>>>> above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>> recognized)
>>
>> Then embedded_H has conclusively proved that its simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> cannot possibly ever reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn even in an infinite number of
>> simulated steps thus meeting the Linz definition of a sequence of
>> configurations that never halt.
>>
>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>
>
> No, it hasn't, because I just showed you that if H -> H.Qn then the
> computation H^ <H^> Halts.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor