Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Happiness is a hard disk.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ keyolcott
+* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
|`* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| +* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| |`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| +- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| +* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| |+* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| ||`* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| || `- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
| |`* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| | `* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |  +* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |  |`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |  +- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |  `* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |   +* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |   |`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |   `* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |    `- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| `- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
+* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
|`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|+- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|`* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| +* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| |`* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| | `* Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mikeolcott
| |  +* Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mikeolcott
| |  |+- Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mikeolcott
| |  |+* Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mikeolcott
| |  ||+* Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  |||`- Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  ||+- Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  ||+* Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  |||`- Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  ||`* Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  || `* Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  ||  `- Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,olcott
| |  |`- Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mikeolcott
| |  `- Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mikeolcott
| `- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
`- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott

Pages:123
Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piece in dialogue ]

<v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8321&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8321

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:02:00 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 12:01:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
Content-Language: en-US
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key
missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 17
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-q6EECoLyl6EcZRQrozIgIxCGIWu8TY5WoYVYL99T2SbRDNNuWgP21pUiLiFbWzGl+sJmgEfeYXWYjlr!Db3iy8xbhOfkcBtm4KQCAiwfUY/yB/Pt8WeAMwUvTpDH/O/klAy91X37K87XyjIL2KCD4XVkagu1
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: 1894
 by: olcott - Sun, 3 Apr 2022 17:01 UTC

KEY MISSING PIECE IN THE DIALOGUE (that all reviewers get incorrectly)

The key missing piece in all of these dialogues is 100% perfectly and
exactly does it mean for a halt decider to compute the mapping from its
input finite strings to its own final states on the basis of the actual
behavior actually specified by this finite string pair.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V4)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359349179_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V4

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8324&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8324

 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!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 15:26:39 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:26:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 25
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-yjSaXCW9JCB7qFkHM2pF4JLzNVabLWmSgLXjSPzU0VPnQm9+byisiXpl0ziCNTRz6kn+T40HZBlTtIM!E0/qLjIdpCM2x6t+YGJ1LYPC10OFNCjl8wsYpLYHLsiDbaTm2FmsjY+aHqL4JfPWtI5DDMZs1RnX
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: 2392
 by: olcott - Sun, 3 Apr 2022 20:26 UTC

On 4/3/2022 2:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> The key missing piece in all of these dialogues is 100% perfectly and
>> exactly does it mean for a halt decider to compute the mapping from
>> its input finite strings to its own final states on the basis of the
>> actual behavior actually specified by this finite string pair.
>
> You certainly have trouble understanding this so I will repeat my offer
> to take you through a series of student exercises that I am confident
> (provided you approach them with an open mind) will lead you to fully
> understanding what this means.
>

OK let's give it a shot. I know that I must be correct yet when you try
to explain these things using your words then this will probably result
in much greater mutual understanding, thus worth the effort. After we do
this I can explain my ideas using your own words.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8325&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8325

 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!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 18:38:51 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:38:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 61
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Z5JM0u/u1Ymiy5zs9lK0VXaC6700SAoOuqGg3RI036GkbCuSZ1uMXVFjpHHCDVyrleYwuwWeJcKoOvi!TrcxobRqQ2nGQ9kpcUfTCgLD5AH3NZN8CgPhkq5dIqSAcl7RxI9oL+1JlURC7/lj1UR6CQADMgDe
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: 4133
 by: olcott - Sun, 3 Apr 2022 23:38 UTC

On 4/3/2022 5:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/3/2022 5:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2022 4:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/3/2022 2:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key missing piece in all of these dialogues is 100% perfectly and
>>>>>>> exactly does it mean for a halt decider to compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> its input finite strings to its own final states on the basis of the
>>>>>>> actual behavior actually specified by this finite string pair.
>>>>>> You certainly have trouble understanding this so I will repeat my offer
>>>>>> to take you through a series of student exercises that I am confident
>>>>>> (provided you approach them with an open mind) will lead you to fully
>>>>>> understanding what this means.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK let's give it a shot.
>>>>
>>>> Great!  Let's start with something that will force a lot of hidden
>>>> assumptions to be made explicit.
>>>>
>>>> Q: Is the set of even numbers decidable?  If so, specify the TM (call it
>>>>     E) using Linz's notation (extended if you like).  If not, why not?
>>>>
>>>> (This may be slow to get started, because there is a lot low-level
>>>> things to iron out first.)
>>>>
>>> That depends on how you define your terms. Any element of the set of
>>> integers can be determined to be divisible by 2 with or without a remainder.
>>> Can every element of this set be enumerated in finite time?
>>> No. Can the set of all even numbers be defined in finite space?
>>> Yes through algorithmic compression.
>>
>> I forgot decidability is merely a membership algorithm, so yes.
>
> (Didn't see you'd moved on. Ignore my last reply.)
>
> I would say no. And for the reason you keep giving: any TM that decides
> membership can't have a number as input. TMs accept or reject strings,
> not numbers.
>
> But surely the iseven(n) function is computable, so how do you think we
> should resolve this? Hint: think encoding.
>
> Can you have a stab at specifying E now using Linz's notation?
>

I want to very thoroughly go through all of the points completely as
efficiently as possible. Because a C function could do this as a pure
function of its ASCII digit sequence inputs by merely examining the last
digits for: {0,2,4,8} we know that E is decidable.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<xvGdnTDk_8tm7Nb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8328&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8328

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic sci.math comp.ai.philosophy
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 17:32:27 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 17:32:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<1cudneORZsT2qNf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mth1ae3z.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RJCdnVAp-PNjodf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85adc8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uLKdnSnsBawK39f_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871qydabvg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r9ydndF_Xuemx9f_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee2d88a6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w_WdndouypjXZtf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub87tkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lMednU9oMbfWidb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilro7r87.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<xtmdnZF-EMLqgdb_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <877d847hkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QIadnYCjduZ6y9b_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<TLCdndnQj-b7xNb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1995ece1-8094-442d-b82d-a0a2563653f2n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <1995ece1-8094-442d-b82d-a0a2563653f2n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xvGdnTDk_8tm7Nb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 139
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wVsAXMMDMuH84/icy3txq4wz8HGrx6eQ82YEf+9RHl1NE6zmkHEwp1vFQzOPuVr4dWxghfB4clm7gyC!qTuL07dk8XRsjDonaqiGtvx3ikdfV2Mezs6qdv91mi/0ObTQ2uoyM6PPbcChf+NjczQ2pnxBkIbt
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: 8513
 by: olcott - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 22:32 UTC

On 4/4/2022 5:23 PM, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 04:47:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2022 2:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 10:32 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 5:14 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be time to skip ahead because the next exercise is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same for P, a TM that decides if a string encodes a prime
>>>>>>>>>>>> number. Can
>>>>>>>>>>>> you think of how to specify that without giving an algorithm?
>>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 ??? ⊦* P.qy if ???
>>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 ??? ⊦* P.qn otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (The three ??? won't all be the same things.) Any idea how to
>>>>>>>>>>>> flesh
>>>>>>>>>>>> this out? If you can, you will be able to do it for E very
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 S ⊦* P.qy if Is-Prime-Number(S)
>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 S ⊦* P.qn otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>> That's getting close. We know, from how the notation works,
>>>>>>>>>> that S is a
>>>>>>>>>> string of symbols in the TM's alphabet. But writing
>>>>>>>>>> Is-Prime-Number(S)
>>>>>>>>>> suggests that is not natural language. That's a very hard route
>>>>>>>>>> to go
>>>>>>>>>> down. I'd have to ask you for the definition of Is-Prime-Number.
>>>>>>>>>> Defining it symbolically is messy and if the definition is /not/
>>>>>>>>>> formal,
>>>>>>>>>> dressing the definition up with a formal-looking name is just
>>>>>>>>>> superficial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It goes through some tedious steps to see if it is a prime number:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a
>>>>>>>>> product of two smaller natural numbers.
>>>>>>>> We've hit a bit of a road-block rather sooner that I had expected.
>>>>>>>> First off, there's no need to define what a prime number is. If
>>>>>>>> at some
>>>>>>>> point it turns out that your readers do not know, go ahead and define
>>>>>>>> it, but it's too widely understood by comp.theory readers to bother
>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>> But writing (as I think you are suggesting)
>>>>>>>> P.q0 S ⊦* P.qy it goes through some tedious steps to see
>>>>>>>> if it is a
>>>>>>>> prime number
>>>>>>>> is not really adequate. There are two 'it'. To what do they refer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You told me to make sure that I do not provide an algorithm.
>>>>>> Yes, that good. You didn't.
>>>>>> Now, to what do the two 'it's refer?
>>>>
>>>> OK, maybe things have gone too far already, but why are you ignoring my
>>>> questions? Your phrase used 'it' twice. What did you intend to refer
>>>> to by these two pronouns? It was not an idle question. I think when
>>>> you answer it, at least one problem will become clear.
>>>>
>>>>>>> This is somewhat algorithmic:
>>>>>> No, no. The non-algorithmic way is best. You should be able to
>>>>>> specific what a computation does even when yo have no idea how to write
>>>>>> the an algorithm to do it. Sometimes there isn't ad algorithm!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and nothing in P.q0 S ⊦* P.qy is a number so there is nothing
>>>>>>>> there to
>>>>>>>> be a prime number.
>>>>>>>> Can you see how you (a) make it shorter, (b) make it clearer?
>>>>>> My reply has three questions in it (depending on how you count) but you
>>>>>> didn't answer any of them. This will only work if you try to answer
>>>>>> these questions. Sometimes the answer will be "I don't know what you
>>>>>> mean", but that's a perfectly good answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything besides the bare function name is somewhat algorithmic so
>>>>> what you are asking for seems impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a supporting exercise. Write down at least half a dozen strings
>>>> that might be passed to P. At least one of them should be a string that
>>>> P must accept and at least one must be a string the P should reject, but
>>>> you should say, for each one, whether P accepts of rejects it.
>>>>
>>>> Be prepared for me to raise questions about what the strings represent.
>>>> It's easy to assume conventions from everyday life that should be stated
>>>> explicitly. You must have come across this in software: "the manual
>>>> said the input should be a number but it went wrong for सहस्र."
>>>>
>>>> Finally, don't fuss about the prime bit. Just use the word prime.
>>>> Everyone one knows what it means. The key thing here is to state /what/
>>>> must be prime for P to correctly accept a string.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am estimating that we will finally achieve closure on this.
>>> Creating a common language between us will achieve the basis for mutual
>>> understanding.
>>>
>> The process that we are doing looks like it will be effective on the
>> basis of eliminating all hidden assumptions.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> No use. Even all the people you find agree with you is still useless. To claim
> you solved the HP problem, you have to show ALL your H first. People cannot
> judge or teach 'claims'. But your P already showed wrong, no need to publish H.

My analysis is based on this model: If "an X is a Y" and Z says that "an
X is a Y" then anything in the universe that disagrees is necessarily
incorrect.

"an X is a Y" =
The input to embedded_H specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations. (input is non-halting)

Z says that "an X is a Y" =
embedded_H rejects its input.

If you can think of a case where
"an X is a Y" is simultaneously true and false then you have a rebuttal,
otherwise not so much.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<bI2dnXgy64xm69b_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8329&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8329

 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!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 17:53:47 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 17:53:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<1cudneORZsT2qNf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mth1ae3z.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RJCdnVAp-PNjodf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85adc8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uLKdnSnsBawK39f_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871qydabvg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r9ydndF_Xuemx9f_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee2d88a6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w_WdndouypjXZtf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub87tkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lMednU9oMbfWidb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilro7r87.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<xtmdnZF-EMLqgdb_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <877d847hkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QIadnYCjduZ6y9b_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<TLCdndnQj-b7xNb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1995ece1-8094-442d-b82d-a0a2563653f2n@googlegroups.com>
<xvGdnTDk_8tm7Nb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4eef0a5f-4c42-47f6-b071-ecb38597cb8dn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <4eef0a5f-4c42-47f6-b071-ecb38597cb8dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <bI2dnXgy64xm69b_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 154
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6WL/PG+U9U2qZ0VIEN/0/cQYWw7rB1NJR2GmySgn0F0PwH9vkJ3k5rV1CP8+rU3xOaMkgWNzdI2Yvrn!Pst+6yRka+/uY/f0H2LeMjKwfVZDYwZX/MYQXoOFeQqNCmh/7tNmcWnwl3iQomMSnH6DbKjL4RE7
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: 9363
 by: olcott - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 22:53 UTC

On 4/4/2022 5:41 PM, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 06:32:34 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/4/2022 5:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 04:47:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2022 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/4/2022 2:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 11:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 10:32 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 5:14 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be time to skip ahead because the next exercise is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same for P, a TM that decides if a string encodes a prime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number. Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think of how to specify that without giving an algorithm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 ??? ⊦* P.qy if ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 ??? ⊦* P.qn otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The three ??? won't all be the same things.) Any idea how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this out? If you can, you will be able to do it for E very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 S ⊦* P.qy if Is-Prime-Number(S)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 S ⊦* P.qn otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's getting close. We know, from how the notation works,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that S is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> string of symbols in the TM's alphabet. But writing
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is-Prime-Number(S)
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests that is not natural language. That's a very hard route
>>>>>>>>>>>> to go
>>>>>>>>>>>> down. I'd have to ask you for the definition of Is-Prime-Number.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Defining it symbolically is messy and if the definition is /not/
>>>>>>>>>>>> formal,
>>>>>>>>>>>> dressing the definition up with a formal-looking name is just
>>>>>>>>>>>> superficial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It goes through some tedious steps to see if it is a prime number:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a
>>>>>>>>>>> product of two smaller natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>> We've hit a bit of a road-block rather sooner that I had expected.
>>>>>>>>>> First off, there's no need to define what a prime number is. If
>>>>>>>>>> at some
>>>>>>>>>> point it turns out that your readers do not know, go ahead and define
>>>>>>>>>> it, but it's too widely understood by comp.theory readers to bother
>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>> But writing (as I think you are suggesting)
>>>>>>>>>> P.q0 S ⊦* P.qy it goes through some tedious steps to see
>>>>>>>>>> if it is a
>>>>>>>>>> prime number
>>>>>>>>>> is not really adequate. There are two 'it'. To what do they refer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You told me to make sure that I do not provide an algorithm.
>>>>>>>> Yes, that good. You didn't.
>>>>>>>> Now, to what do the two 'it's refer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, maybe things have gone too far already, but why are you ignoring my
>>>>>> questions? Your phrase used 'it' twice. What did you intend to refer
>>>>>> to by these two pronouns? It was not an idle question. I think when
>>>>>> you answer it, at least one problem will become clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is somewhat algorithmic:
>>>>>>>> No, no. The non-algorithmic way is best. You should be able to
>>>>>>>> specific what a computation does even when yo have no idea how to write
>>>>>>>> the an algorithm to do it. Sometimes there isn't ad algorithm!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and nothing in P.q0 S ⊦* P.qy is a number so there is nothing
>>>>>>>>>> there to
>>>>>>>>>> be a prime number.
>>>>>>>>>> Can you see how you (a) make it shorter, (b) make it clearer?
>>>>>>>> My reply has three questions in it (depending on how you count) but you
>>>>>>>> didn't answer any of them. This will only work if you try to answer
>>>>>>>> these questions. Sometimes the answer will be "I don't know what you
>>>>>>>> mean", but that's a perfectly good answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything besides the bare function name is somewhat algorithmic so
>>>>>>> what you are asking for seems impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a supporting exercise. Write down at least half a dozen strings
>>>>>> that might be passed to P. At least one of them should be a string that
>>>>>> P must accept and at least one must be a string the P should reject, but
>>>>>> you should say, for each one, whether P accepts of rejects it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be prepared for me to raise questions about what the strings represent.
>>>>>> It's easy to assume conventions from everyday life that should be stated
>>>>>> explicitly. You must have come across this in software: "the manual
>>>>>> said the input should be a number but it went wrong for सहस्र."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, don't fuss about the prime bit. Just use the word prime.
>>>>>> Everyone one knows what it means. The key thing here is to state /what/
>>>>>> must be prime for P to correctly accept a string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am estimating that we will finally achieve closure on this.
>>>>> Creating a common language between us will achieve the basis for mutual
>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>
>>>> The process that we are doing looks like it will be effective on the
>>>> basis of eliminating all hidden assumptions.
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>> No use. Even all the people you find agree with you is still useless. To claim
>>> you solved the HP problem, you have to show ALL your H first. People cannot
>>> judge or teach 'claims'. But your P already showed wrong, no need to publish H.
>> My analysis is based on this model: If "an X is a Y" and Z says that "an
>> X is a Y" then anything in the universe that disagrees is necessarily
>> incorrect.
>>
>> "an X is a Y" =
>> The input to embedded_H specifies a non-halting sequence of
>> configurations. (input is non-halting)
>>
>> Z says that "an X is a Y" =
>> embedded_H rejects its input.
>>
>> If you can think of a case where
>> "an X is a Y" is simultaneously true and false then you have a rebuttal,
>> otherwise not so much.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> You simply do not have H. What you say? If you say yes, then show it to prove.


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

<jOidnV2TaIHF5NH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8330&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8330

 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, 05 Apr 2022 12:16:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:16:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jOidnV2TaIHF5NH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 71
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UiO/AWCTX8wz7enQaJdYthckI7n0zMgUesGtsxGVIbRw+8dx0Rmis1GAPT+8staWsRVH1qamq/uuDy/!AiBS6YyLuY0XeIIYeorb213Oil1d31SsjtxwG5fE2/jmPeusjSYfQ2yMYqdt7Po759fQcqMMKZMF!DQ==
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: 5232
 by: olcott - Tue, 5 Apr 2022 17:16 UTC

On 4/5/2022 11:59 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 14:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> [I wrote:]
>>>     The reasons why it's not possible to write a halt decider show
>>> up perfectly well if you try to do so in K&R C for a PDP 11 [64K bytes
>>> code, same for date, 2.4M discs, ...].  They're not things that can
>>> only be done with supercomputers with hundreds of processors, etc.
>>> These interminable threads get hung up on the behaviour of programs of
>>> less than a page of code.
>> Now here there is technical wrinkle.  One can, probably, prove that
>> halting of bounded-resource computations can't be solved by certain
>> similarly bounded-resource machines.  But who'd want to do the maths to
>> prove that?  And if the decider has unbounded resources, then halting of
>> bounded-resource computations /is/ decidable -- trivially so.
>
>     Yes, but I was thinking of real, skilled, programmers trying to do
> the manifestly impossible.  I have in mind one of our [successful!] MSc
> students who visited two or three years later:  "What are you doing?"  "Oh,
> my boss got fed up with [programs that something-or-other, I forget what],
> so he wanted me to write a program that detects [whatever-it-was]."  "But
> that's not possible, it's a simple reduction from the HP!"  "Oh, no, I've
> almost done it, just a couple of cases to sort out."  A few months later,
> he came by again:  "Sorted those, but there are a few bugs."  "Hm, well,
> good luck, but I still think it's impossible."  A few months again, and
> I got a letter [these were the days before e-mail!] -- "You were right!
> It could do the toy examples I gave it, but it got stuck with any real
> programs, and I can't make progress, so we've given up."
>
>     PO's problems with his "fully coded TMs" aren't caused by his PC
> being finite, nor by limitations of C or his OS, nor even [as far as we
> know] by bugs in his "emulator", but by his failures to understand what
> the HP is really about, and his failures to produce a proper "hatted"
> version of his attempts to solve it.
>

I say the issue is exactly the opposite of this, I am the only one with
a correct understanding of what a halt decider must do.

WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state.

HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state:

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

All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
configurations than the one the is actually specified by the actual input.

>> When trying to get PO to see how to specify a computation, I don't want
>> to deal with all the distractions that using some abstract C with no
>> pointer limitations will throw up.
>
>     Instead, you're having to deal with his apparent [but he may just
> be trolling] difficulties in understanding what you want.  I wonder how he
> would get on with similar exercises in C, where he's not struggling with
> the concept of unary [and efficiency] but could simply count and perhaps
> analyse characters in the standard input?  [FTAOD, "wonder" is something
> of an exaggeration.]
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<xdydnchxG7MPKNH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8331&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8331

 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, 05 Apr 2022 16:33:06 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:33:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1cudneORZsT2qNf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mth1ae3z.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RJCdnVAp-PNjodf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85adc8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uLKdnSnsBawK39f_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydabvg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <r9ydndF_Xuemx9f_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee2d88a6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w_WdndouypjXZtf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub87tkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lMednU9oMbfWidb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilro7r87.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xtmdnZF-EMLqgdb_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<877d847hkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <UeadnWsKI5oqzNb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r16c5tm0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4dSdnWjHVszE4tb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewk5otp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <leidnWIfpu2XBtb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<874k3761bq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yLWdnZ05dv-m6tH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2iaf0$kjr$1@dont-email.me> <HfydnbDt9LrxM9H_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2ic1u$2g5$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2ic1u$2g5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xdydnchxG7MPKNH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 83
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RGxZ/K0WM5AUGy6uLC1RtRotfkgW95MsjFpS7ROchSv7IrYYx5RM2JkAslOkeEbiMekAtcfNROjSAHz!rDwMbHnAaicVkWZcleXuKlpsEXhIobyzi6rV1eCaiDugmzxWluSKFcdXLdWRO80TUXKn4dPvlDGn!VA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5267
 by: olcott - Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:33 UTC

On 4/5/2022 4:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-05 15:02, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/5/2022 3:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-05 11:07, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:40 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 7:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Aside: TMs are often specified to operate on numbers in unary
>>>>>>> notation
>>>>>>> because it is so simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The notation is simple making the algorithm more complex.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  This exercise will help you see why that is not true:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Write a TM that adds two numbers.  The input will be strings of the
>>>>>    form {n}+{m} where {x} is the unary representation of x.  The TM
>>>>>    should halt with only {n+m} on the tape.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Now do the same where the numbers are represented in the usual
>>>>> decimal
>>>>>    notation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was referring to the difference between binary and unary.
>>>
>>> Then why not construct a TM that does this using unary notation and
>>> one that does it using binary notation? You'll find the former is
>>> much simpler.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Unary freaks me out with its counter-intuitive nature. Ben says that
>> it proves to be simpler than binary and I accept his word on this.
>
> But don't you think that it would be worth your while to try to
> understand *why* this is the case?
>
> One of Ben's goals seems to be to get you to actually construct a Turing
> Machine, a task which would almost certainly rid you of many of your
> misconceptions about Turing Machines and how they work.
>
> His example of an "Eveness Decider" is trivial to construct regardless
> of whether you use unary or binary representation (though it is slightly
> easier using the former). This example is "Hello World!" territory, not
> some massive undertaking. You'd really benefit from actually attempting
> this.
>
> André
>

The only thing that is actually needed is to eliminate hidden
assumptions in the meanings that are being expressed so that the last
sentence of the following is understood to prove that I am correct:

I say the issue is exactly the opposite of this, I am the only one with
a correct understanding of what a halt decider must do.

WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state.

HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state:

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

All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
configurations than the one the is actually specified by the actual input.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<ALedndWigPV3RdH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8333&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8333

 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, 05 Apr 2022 19:03:54 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 19:03:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee2d88a6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w_WdndouypjXZtf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub87tkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lMednU9oMbfWidb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilro7r87.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xtmdnZF-EMLqgdb_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<877d847hkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <UeadnWsKI5oqzNb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r16c5tm0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4dSdnWjHVszE4tb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewk5otp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <leidnWIfpu2XBtb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<874k3761bq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yLWdnZ05dv-m6tH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2iaf0$kjr$1@dont-email.me> <HfydnbDt9LrxM9H_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2ic1u$2g5$1@dont-email.me> <xdydnchxG7MPKNH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2ig2n$vmq$1@dont-email.me> <KLGdndZ3tfqnVtH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2ij5a$j30$1@dont-email.me> <Y82dnTSZ-dHYTNH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2ijvp$nsk$1@dont-email.me> <kY2dnVPekuQXSNH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2il0q$tok$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2il0q$tok$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ALedndWigPV3RdH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 111
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zO8MXubbb5NcYiIfqHdhRjQU985v4YGXKXr803hWBZPAg5wz0qmqeBpKiNEhqwhCZ6TZyTDzlJs2IC8!QN3IIrxsqfMhTy8gRKyuTu0Rghd2Sqb+YYPpl/zdm0PC5tIpdC1h1VUw9wvWiP3pQ3cnbFi5VHGR!CA==
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: 6794
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:03 UTC

On 4/5/2022 6:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-05 17:49, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/5/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-05 17:31, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2022 6:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-05 17:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 5:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 4:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-05 15:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 3:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-05 11:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:40 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2022 7:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aside: TMs are often specified to operate on numbers in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unary notation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is so simple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The notation is simple making the algorithm more complex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.  This exercise will help you see why that is not true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Write a TM that adds two numbers.  The input will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    form {n}+{m} where {x} is the unary representation of x.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    should halt with only {n+m} on the tape.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Now do the same where the numbers are represented in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usual decimal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    notation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was referring to the difference between binary and unary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then why not construct a TM that does this using unary
>>>>>>>>>>> notation and one that does it using binary notation? You'll
>>>>>>>>>>> find the former is much simpler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And while you are at it, try base three numbers (or any odd base
>>>>>>> greater than one). But no matter what, try writing a TM. Lose
>>>>>>> your fear of public failure and dive in somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a fear of failure nitwit.
>>>>>> It is like asking a brain surgeon do you know what a bed pan is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that you have consistently demonstrated that you *don't*
>>>>> have even the vaguest understanding of how TMs work, so the above
>>>>> analogy is hardly apropos.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The most direct path forward on this might be to implement a
>>>>>> base-2 even-number decider in this system:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/turing.html
>>>>>> (a) Go to the end of the input (space delimited)
>>>>>> (b) Test last input tape cell for "0" digit
>>>>>> (c) Accept or Reject input.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not just demonstrate how this works by constructing the
>>>>> actual TM?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evident that I know exactly how this works by my
>>>> specification.
>>>
>>> What you give above is not a specification. A specification is what
>>> Ben has been asking you to provide but which you have been unable or
>>> unwilling to do.
>>>
>>
>> If neither of you can see how the above would be translated into a TM of
>> this kind: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/turing.html
>> You are not too bright.
>
> The task I suggested for you was to construct both an evenness-decider
> that uses binary representations and one that uses unary representations
> so you could see why the latter is simpler. Giving an outline of a
> single algorithm without actually constructing the two Turing Machines
> is not going to achieve that. As I said, these TMs are of the "Hello
> World!" level of difficulty, so your reluctance is a bit mystifying.
>
> André

That may or may not prove helpful to achieve mutual understanding of the
last sentence shown here: (Its pointless if it doesn't help with this).

WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state.

HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state:

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

THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual input.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8338&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8338

 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, 06 Apr 2022 10:28:59 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:28:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ H is correct ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 56
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Mex7QdhyVTGewWvypbsU/zve35C2qP2oU+LcYBfbSofncgPe4zsKL1yYbl65wLVgxYruCg/OXKjDsY5!IK/LSGbfo6WD/B/giUEdhoyikBYLntJOp3Xzy3wrEXRLiRC6xwPu3xhh9Q6bJ7MNzxAJAhMBx6gu!Eg==
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: 4403
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:28 UTC

On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 06/04/2022 02:57, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>>>> Yes, but I was thinking of real, skilled, programmers trying to do
>>>> the manifestly impossible. I have in mind one of our [successful!] MSc
>>>> students who visited two or three years later: [...].
>>>
>>> What used to be called a "conversion MSc"?
>>
>> Yes, and no. We didn't think of it that way, as we treated CS
>> as just another branch of maths -- all of our students did some, just
>> as they all did some statistics, and quite a lot chose to do CS options
>> in the third year. From that PoV, it was a continuation rather than a
>> conversion MSc, offering more advanced CS [and statistics, ...] than
>> had been in the BSc. But it could have been a conversion for students
>> coming with [maths] BScs from other places.
>
> Ours was more genuinely conversion as we took students with, in theory,
> any background at all -- philosophy, English, history, whatever. In
> general those with maths, physics and EE backgrounds has fewer problems,
> but the MSc (in contrast to the BSc) was deliberately designed to have
> less theory in it.
>
>> [...]
>>>> Instead, you're having to deal with his apparent [but he may just
>>>> be trolling] difficulties in understanding what you want. I wonder how he
>>>> would get on with similar exercises in C, [...].
>>> Right. I think TMs may be a step too far. I don't think I'll get even
>>> one TM accurately specified, let alone written.
>>
>> You [and others] know this, yet persist! I suppose there is
>> some interest in knowing what the next wriggle will be?
>
> I just wonder when he'll stop the "tutorial".
>
> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
> despite the fact that P(P) halts),

If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<u5idnZh-y_1BW9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8339&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8339

 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, 06 Apr 2022 11:59:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:59:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ H is correct ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e8275782-f862-481b-b96b-5e71f2fe3274n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e8275782-f862-481b-b96b-5e71f2fe3274n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <u5idnZh-y_1BW9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-oOWNxKluqV+GbAMFaacwftQ8OulUsEeV0qBmrG8Ft0LRODxT4RFYz7LB5hIlVPk6wR1IcUG2nw2G0CO!3GOLVsYgCDIDnYa/6xQasrbkSxmEOEUnjMlo/hJNYSMa/WaeK1+tfLYCB0XyS0XE5uFXkeqmvw6h!OQ==
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: 5693
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:59 UTC

On 4/6/2022 11:43 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 11:29:06 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 06/04/2022 02:57, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> [I wrote:]
>>>>>> Yes, but I was thinking of real, skilled, programmers trying to do
>>>>>> the manifestly impossible. I have in mind one of our [successful!] MSc
>>>>>> students who visited two or three years later: [...].
>>>>>
>>>>> What used to be called a "conversion MSc"?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and no. We didn't think of it that way, as we treated CS
>>>> as just another branch of maths -- all of our students did some, just
>>>> as they all did some statistics, and quite a lot chose to do CS options
>>>> in the third year. From that PoV, it was a continuation rather than a
>>>> conversion MSc, offering more advanced CS [and statistics, ...] than
>>>> had been in the BSc. But it could have been a conversion for students
>>>> coming with [maths] BScs from other places.
>>>
>>> Ours was more genuinely conversion as we took students with, in theory,
>>> any background at all -- philosophy, English, history, whatever. In
>>> general those with maths, physics and EE backgrounds has fewer problems,
>>> but the MSc (in contrast to the BSc) was deliberately designed to have
>>> less theory in it.
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Instead, you're having to deal with his apparent [but he may just
>>>>>> be trolling] difficulties in understanding what you want. I wonder how he
>>>>>> would get on with similar exercises in C, [...].
>>>>> Right. I think TMs may be a step too far. I don't think I'll get even
>>>>> one TM accurately specified, let alone written.
>>>>
>>>> You [and others] know this, yet persist! I suppose there is
>>>> some interest in knowing what the next wriggle will be?
>>>
>>> I just wonder when he'll stop the "tutorial".
>>>
>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>
>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the universe
>> disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>
> What you've actually shown is that for any simulating halt decider H, H^ built from it, and input <H^><H^> which represents H^ applied to <H^>, no H can simulate H^ applied to <H^> to its final state. This says nothing of whether H^ applied to <H^> halts, which is the actual question *as stated in the Linz proof*.
>

>> If it is the case that the

CORRECTLY

>> simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then

computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
a final state. (Linz:1990:234) cannot possibly be met therefore

>> H correctly
>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.

> You may in fact have a white dog in your living room, and people do agree with that, but no one cares because they want to know if there is a black cat in your kitchen.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<1OqdnShoiPH0S9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8340&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8340

 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, 06 Apr 2022 13:05:29 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:05:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ H is correct ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e8275782-f862-481b-b96b-5e71f2fe3274n@googlegroups.com>
<u5idnZh-y_1BW9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c2109ffa-35f7-4a0c-8472-89e8d22294a6n@googlegroups.com>
<jrWdnf8nHNMtT9D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<19b17d44-30c6-41df-b83c-eb3ed6b50952n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <19b17d44-30c6-41df-b83c-eb3ed6b50952n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1OqdnShoiPH0S9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-c4yJsuyVa5VLpxeTXHI93AwG38W8mYKBlOsELsn2Rs3yxYnZsWCTtI3BSxBL/04QY8R4qW1VRa/aGDX!8njfJtSSoeIKaDmqu9vxc4vsaLc4el64vaAYqxNiE/2NpNDeo1truj4ytBBoN0SuVuyqhME4KS0P!Pg==
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: 6585
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:05 UTC

On 4/6/2022 12:55 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:49:43 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 12:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:59:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 11:43 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 11:29:06 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 02:57, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> [I wrote:]
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but I was thinking of real, skilled, programmers trying to do
>>>>>>>>>> the manifestly impossible. I have in mind one of our [successful!] MSc
>>>>>>>>>> students who visited two or three years later: [...].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What used to be called a "conversion MSc"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and no. We didn't think of it that way, as we treated CS
>>>>>>>> as just another branch of maths -- all of our students did some, just
>>>>>>>> as they all did some statistics, and quite a lot chose to do CS options
>>>>>>>> in the third year. From that PoV, it was a continuation rather than a
>>>>>>>> conversion MSc, offering more advanced CS [and statistics, ...] than
>>>>>>>> had been in the BSc. But it could have been a conversion for students
>>>>>>>> coming with [maths] BScs from other places.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ours was more genuinely conversion as we took students with, in theory,
>>>>>>> any background at all -- philosophy, English, history, whatever. In
>>>>>>> general those with maths, physics and EE backgrounds has fewer problems,
>>>>>>> but the MSc (in contrast to the BSc) was deliberately designed to have
>>>>>>> less theory in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> Instead, you're having to deal with his apparent [but he may just
>>>>>>>>>> be trolling] difficulties in understanding what you want. I wonder how he
>>>>>>>>>> would get on with similar exercises in C, [...].
>>>>>>>>> Right. I think TMs may be a step too far. I don't think I'll get even
>>>>>>>>> one TM accurately specified, let alone written.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You [and others] know this, yet persist! I suppose there is
>>>>>>>> some interest in knowing what the next wriggle will be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just wonder when he'll stop the "tutorial".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the universe
>>>>>> disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you've actually shown is that for any simulating halt decider H, H^ built from it, and input <H^><H^> which represents H^ applied to <H^>, no H can simulate H^ applied to <H^> to its final state. This says nothing of whether H^ applied to <H^> halts, which is the actual question *as stated in the Linz proof*.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If it is the case that the
>>>> CORRECTLY
>>>>>> simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then
>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234) cannot possibly be met therefore
>>>
>>> The *turing machine*, not an inaccurate simulation. The measurement of correct is what H^ applied to <H^> does.
>>>
>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies a different sequence of configurations than
>> the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H.
>
> Then you're answering the wrong question. The question being asked is "Does H^ applied to <H^> halt?",

No that is not the freaking question you freaking nitwit.

The question is: Does the input specify a sequence of configurations
that would reach their own final state?

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<LIKdnZFFlsltRtD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8341&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8341

 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, 06 Apr 2022 13:29:04 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:29:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ H is correct ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e8275782-f862-481b-b96b-5e71f2fe3274n@googlegroups.com>
<u5idnZh-y_1BW9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c2109ffa-35f7-4a0c-8472-89e8d22294a6n@googlegroups.com>
<jrWdnf8nHNMtT9D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<19b17d44-30c6-41df-b83c-eb3ed6b50952n@googlegroups.com>
<1OqdnShoiPH0S9D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6af1c7ca-19f1-45e4-91ba-a5aa25f271bdn@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <6af1c7ca-19f1-45e4-91ba-a5aa25f271bdn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <LIKdnZFFlsltRtD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 97
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-bvtO3/2KOkKBiCdRVhcAnzkGBpPx2YjyHHYyPSSe4aqKpmF41qbdrM5AdwaeE8RqNAho82OsW4VdPiZ!nR8y96hSQb2eiHJoO62lqX+Bj9a77f3TxWmOc00qRnz3wU1Qy6ZjFDC7yImU1pCBNVBAndVQEEGw!Pg==
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: 7248
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:29 UTC

On 4/6/2022 1:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 2:05:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 12:55 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:49:43 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 12:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:59:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 11:43 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 11:29:06 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2022 02:57, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [I wrote:]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but I was thinking of real, skilled, programmers trying to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> the manifestly impossible. I have in mind one of our [successful!] MSc
>>>>>>>>>>>> students who visited two or three years later: [...].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What used to be called a "conversion MSc"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and no. We didn't think of it that way, as we treated CS
>>>>>>>>>> as just another branch of maths -- all of our students did some, just
>>>>>>>>>> as they all did some statistics, and quite a lot chose to do CS options
>>>>>>>>>> in the third year. From that PoV, it was a continuation rather than a
>>>>>>>>>> conversion MSc, offering more advanced CS [and statistics, ...] than
>>>>>>>>>> had been in the BSc. But it could have been a conversion for students
>>>>>>>>>> coming with [maths] BScs from other places.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ours was more genuinely conversion as we took students with, in theory,
>>>>>>>>> any background at all -- philosophy, English, history, whatever. In
>>>>>>>>> general those with maths, physics and EE backgrounds has fewer problems,
>>>>>>>>> but the MSc (in contrast to the BSc) was deliberately designed to have
>>>>>>>>> less theory in it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, you're having to deal with his apparent [but he may just
>>>>>>>>>>>> be trolling] difficulties in understanding what you want. I wonder how he
>>>>>>>>>>>> would get on with similar exercises in C, [...].
>>>>>>>>>>> Right. I think TMs may be a step too far. I don't think I'll get even
>>>>>>>>>>> one TM accurately specified, let alone written.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You [and others] know this, yet persist! I suppose there is
>>>>>>>>>> some interest in knowing what the next wriggle will be?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just wonder when he'll stop the "tutorial".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the universe
>>>>>>>> disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you've actually shown is that for any simulating halt decider H, H^ built from it, and input <H^><H^> which represents H^ applied to <H^>, no H can simulate H^ applied to <H^> to its final state. This says nothing of whether H^ applied to <H^> halts, which is the actual question *as stated in the Linz proof*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the
>>>>>> CORRECTLY
>>>>>>>> simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then
>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234) cannot possibly be met therefore
>>>>>
>>>>> The *turing machine*, not an inaccurate simulation. The measurement of correct is what H^ applied to <H^> does.
>>>>>
>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies a different sequence of configurations than
>>>> the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H.
>>>
>>> Then you're answering the wrong question. The question being asked is "Does H^ applied to <H^> halt?",
>> No that is not the freaking question you freaking nitwit.
>>
>> The question is: Does the input specify a sequence of configurations
>> that would reach their own final state?
>
> FALSE. From Linz:
>
Linz is wrong too.
Because we know that a halt decider must compute the mapping

FROM ITS INPUTS
FROM ITS INPUTS
FROM ITS INPUTS
FROM ITS INPUTS

Anyone that says it must compute the mapping from non-inputs such as Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ IS FREAKING WRONG !!!

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<7PydnddAn5leedD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8342&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8342

 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, 06 Apr 2022 14:06:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:06:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee2d88a6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w_WdndouypjXZtf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub87tkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lMednU9oMbfWidb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilro7r87.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xtmdnZF-EMLqgdb_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<877d847hkd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <UeadnWsKI5oqzNb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r16c5tm0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4dSdnWjHVszE4tb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewk5otp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <leidnWIfpu2XBtb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<874k3761bq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yLWdnZ05dv-m6tH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0c33rk3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9OCdnd0y-MtNatH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81e3mso.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <eI6dnePeWI_8jdD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d822zfj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t7SdnX_CbaqAM9D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxegi88.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fJKdnTjPVsDHf9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<67324a11-fe44-4ae5-aeb5-b13ee3033c58n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <67324a11-fe44-4ae5-aeb5-b13ee3033c58n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <7PydnddAn5leedD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 32
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9Yd7NCE8XcvzTP8u7zsimx6dxxJTE/Hw+u6R8LCi6hZJEr532x1Q1FOVxocMG4kWURXI/OwjdwRGnOo!XMhosPYwjFBULYAjo3PPAV3TFXfwk6WydaXhaCye6i/9YkfnflvcGMIE2FS8XzF1bsV7ZQxBBCaw!zQ==
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: 3480
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 19:06 UTC

On 4/6/2022 1:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 1:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> I thought you wanted to learn how TMs are
>>>>> specified so you had the knowledge to read and understand Linz's
>>>>> specifications.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I already understand this better than you do.
>>>
>>> Ah, let's call it a day then.
>> We have to get to the point where you understand that I aleady know this
>> better than you so I am willing to proceed with the E TM.
>
> Bold words from someone who can't write what's effectively a "hello world" TM.

It is not the tedious details about writing a TM that are most important.

It is exactly how all of the fundamental concepts of the theory of
computation fit together relative to TM's that is most crucial.

If you get the first part perfectly and in the second part you have at
least one large error then you know enormously less about TM's than
someone that only gets the second part correctly.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8344&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8344

 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, 06 Apr 2022 20:01:51 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 20:01:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfquc7ns.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VMSdneUyrJVin9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qydde5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 78
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-cjtMoKU8AaVPd5mE2yDPgdwFU2KIGJDigTnz5TRnKlBXMURvfKASEbCFYidvsJ8wO4PZGnkygLEoCZq!pDq1ct9XlJpsuoR+MbL/WSb7DsTLOen0QWrCc1TqDVf2UgPy+p9mF/WpM/FRhoUDhm8a9yD47jW8!WA==
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: 5230
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 01:01 UTC

On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>
>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>> irrelevant.
>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>
>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>> irrelevant.
>
> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
> specifies a halting computation or not.
>
>>> The "input" to H is two
>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>
>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>
> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>
>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>> computation they would all be liars.
>
> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
> one or other of these statements?
>

As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still correct
because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for getting its
inputs correctly.

If a guard is assigned to watch the front door and no one comes in the
front door and thousands of people come in the back door the guard is
correct to say that no one came in the front door.

The input to H is its front door that it must guard. What P(P) does when
it is not an input is all back door stuff and none of the business of
any decider.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<cZ6dnRLq0c8y_dP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8345&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8345

 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, 06 Apr 2022 22:55:27 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:55:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2l84o$12q$1@dont-email.me> <RNidnVr-m8VuutP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2l9u5$s78$1@dont-email.me> <cvOdnRh1oMwrsNP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lbfp$l03$1@dont-email.me> <ddydnYa4KKXprtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lchk$69m$1@dont-email.me> <ceydnd_Rxc-Xp9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2le3m$ucg$1@dont-email.me> <0Y-dnRfPMZwYoNP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lffh$m4b$1@dont-email.me> <-Y-dneOIwoko39P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lgpi$a5h$1@dont-email.me> <a6idnUCCo_-D1dP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<167d7f14-8a54-4f5b-8932-99236586786fn@googlegroups.com>
<m_-dnS8D686z1NP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<2e2cf0ab-e246-40a9-9d2d-bd9bf5f65d62n@googlegroups.com>
<BPSdnVwEgvGa0tP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b047b854-fa33-4c83-9066-e9c196c6bebbn@googlegroups.com>
<ibidnd7EQLcez9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3d6fb15e-b313-4d09-86ed-595ab8784ce5n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <3d6fb15e-b313-4d09-86ed-595ab8784ce5n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <cZ6dnRLq0c8y_dP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 146
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-otjNKYWt9cpfvtTKwLq8jy3aiw/OVkXYD+mlsSUIEmVMYKDoiDGFn4IJAiDvCN0h8Z14jkQExWRH335!gqiRKy0jfz1D7IasHcATNDF4MJgMtf6Naj3RRI2F9b6193EvBD4ndAPBBZpoX/flB4xRHFB48VLn!wg==
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: 9276
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 03:55 UTC

On 4/6/2022 10:27 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:55:06 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 9:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:40:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:15:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:12 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-06 19:47, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-06 19:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-06 19:10, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, now that we've got that out of the way, here's a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question for you: If you want your evenness decider to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether seven is even, which string would you pass to it? [yes, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this is trivially obvious, just humour me]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 111[]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming that you're using [] to indicate a blank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably your E would *reject* this string since seven is an odd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> number rather than an even one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But notice that in the above case your Turing Machine is rejecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite string "111␣" based on the fact that the *integer* seven,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is neither an input nor a finite string, is not even.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your decider is mapping from a finite string (its input) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject/accept based on something which is a "non-input non-finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string" (to use an expression you've often used).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems totally incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM maps its input finite string to its reject state based on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> property of this finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But 'evenness' is not a property of strings; it is a property of
>>>>>>>>>>> numbers, and strings are not numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can be correctly construed as the property of the string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not by any normal definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A string is an *uninterpreted* sequence of symbols.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your decider bases its decision on a property of the string (is the
>>>>>>>>>>> final digit 0?), but that property only corresponds to evenness by
>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of the encoding you have chosen.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A decider which uses a unary representation (which would be slightly
>>>>>>>>>>> simpler than your binary one) couldn't just look at a single digit. Nor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus not actually simpler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you actually attempted to write the two versions of E, you'd discover
>>>>>>>>> that you are simply wrong in this assessment. The fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>> realize this is merely a testament to the fact that you really don't
>>>>>>>>> understand how Turing Machines work. At all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> could one that used trinary representation (which would be only
>>>>>>>>>>> slightly more complex than your binary one).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes all three of these valid evenness deciders is that they
>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the specification of an evenness decider:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> E.q0 S ⊦* E.qy if the *number* represented by the string S is even
>>>>>>>>>>> E.q0 S ⊦* E.qn otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the TM maps a finite string to an accept/reject state, but this
>>>>>>>>>>> mapping is based on the property of the *number* which that string
>>>>>>>>>>> encodes. That number is not an input, but because it can be encoded
>>>>>>>>>>> as a string we can still legitimately expect a Turing Machine to
>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions about that number.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can be construed as a property of the string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. It cannot be. Properties of a string would include things like
>>>>>>>>> 'length', 'number of distinct symbols', 'is it a palindrome?', etc.
>>>>>>>>> Evenness is not one of those properties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Talking about a finite string as being even or odd is completely
>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless. Only numbers can be even or odd. Yet there is no problem
>>>>>>>>>>> in constructing such a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The string has the "even binary integer" property.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. As soon as you start assigning numerical values to a string (or even
>>>>>>>>> to the individual symbols of a string) you are no longer treating it
>>>>>>>>> purely as a string. You are considering the information which is encoded
>>>>>>>>> in that string, which is a separate matter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The all has to do with mathematicaly fomrmalizing semantic meanings.
>>>>>>>> Finite strings can have semantic properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And just like the meaning assigned to the string "111␣" is the number 7, the meaning assigned to the string <H^><H^> is the turing machine H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so you're finally agreeing that the input <H^><H^> represents H^ applied to <H^>, and that therefore H applied to <H^><H^> is supposed determine if H^ applied to <H^> halts?
>>>> It represents a sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> And that sequence of configurations is H^ applied to <H^> as per the stipulative definition of a halt decider:
>> The actual sequence of configurations specified by these three is not
>> the same thus the behavior can vary.
>>
>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> You can simply assume that they must be the same, yet when you list them
>> you can see that they are not the same.
>
> By definition the input to H and embedded_H is the representation of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩


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

<MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8352&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8352

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 12:43:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:43:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
only look at the front door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<9d73989d-896c-420c-a5b4-c53ffc39f4b4n@googlegroups.com>
<87sfqqgu9t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2kgjs$1v70$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87h776gipq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fJKdnTnPVsBOfND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkxgaot.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXcbkbPsjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrlg5cd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <18SdnUsWQb0IudP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qy9g4kf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <E8OdnQpKTpRCttP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3d6ff0e6-b2ad-4a32-89c4-afab15e9685fn@googlegroups.com>
<cvOdnRt1oMyks9P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<11dcf817-f764-46b1-893b-a05636032622n@googlegroups.com>
<t2n769$777$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2n769$777$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-CUNIggZoq3EbftXGpIqZ3xcL3Mkv95VXcXpHTsdnVV5F2LdsVYxm0xXbuh5dEZXQpQYYDPC0+YRPeQs!h0kOTbRNGZlmZJX59Pa3TVWjsnVy+4A/2qhEmkDkZjW6fsSGR/rI0TYni+UxBZniMdiemFku9Scc!yA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5509
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:43 UTC

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<t_SdnY7uuvv78dL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8353&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8353

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:57:42 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:57:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <t_SdnY7uuvv78dL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 238
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gFTGfxGpj/UgZkCPNWhag2sz7ptqCbYgl5NboOuyqr8rYzQc24z89vzMD6QQFHY62pfnuGMtCHf+8We!IDuuZjuJZxmwrIrLUMGYrth9xtTo9D3rEzrTEWKlPZ4zLKX66S2eAeio7G6xVa/PMZvdJ5BQMlX5!UQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 16470
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:57 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>>>> a halting computation.
>>>>
>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>>>> intuition.
>>>>
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>
>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>> is not a halting computation.
>
> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting. But Hn can't report that.


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

<jaadnfz32JDD79L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8354&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8354

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:23:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:23:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
<t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>
<_ICdnRspmoqP89L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t2nrd8$p70$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2nrd8$p70$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jaadnfz32JDD79L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 87
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DrgH5zV9dN1Qv74es6LG7sOhphm9qwIj3IC9QCIlye6tY+feeYQOxpWXeX4T3KN+n+uXGuMIShfo7zZ!kHcS+UPoicX9YXHZ+MuUr3m7hCQPOwHHaqRq4SVKMBzngWsblnC6iufJIywcohxd8WZtQML8OeSM!lg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5764
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:23 UTC

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8355&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8355

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:45:28 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:45:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ztbI1fOxHyePRiWNQEveW8CdOnnvSY3PEsjv12yDsqruxTpFJQYNZ6kfdtoGPBR7WmrPayFN5AT7EA9!Jx9XTaA6wROpgqlUiG8yiUVDkxtn6vVcmn+kLt3xn5H0hKlTF4RPh0mSp7+4n3ctIbbUMexHuFSz!Ag==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3883
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:45 UTC

On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>
>>> Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why?
>>
>> Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence from
>> validating my 17 years worth of work.
>
> But you have no choice but to tolerate it. If someone wants to talk
> about why you are wrong, they will do so.
>
> You are wrong (for the C version of H) because H(P,P) == false but P(P)
> halts. You are wrong about your TM H because H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> transitions to
> qn, but Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> is a halting computation. (Feel free to deny
> any of these facts if the mood takes you.)
>

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8358&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8358

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:09:03 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:09:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 244
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-g66HUN0eVEmNGKmfflM2y8aYdh++mPV3majPdibxfS4E4vC6Dyw+uxRqOMGVOhLaVxK/OzUr0rP5toS!5YGMh8Lu3j+1JaOGHjyGWhbU9KIjXfa6bG6Gu9TVG8yZE5PQNdI8cNCYL/dqxf4eGOJ4N3j6rN2d!ig==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 16658
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:09 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>>>> a halting computation.
>>>>
>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>>>> intuition.
>>>>
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>
>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>> is not a halting computation.
>
> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.


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

<m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8359&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8359

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:05:01 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:04:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-c41GY3+URU06gfrpUJQSJGbgGWRST40Kcuq+JoR2auvoRuiG+wgk2fVpAhwf/R1lYEtoMGR8WFfnLUG!f6YdXJ7taKrxuMirL9eyd/xo6DH/1rl6/4ke+iyKfFVpAnz7GWAw55ympk8ubQfnwrcvusNjQZu9!5Q==
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: 3351
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:04 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-08 11:02, olcott wrote:
>
>> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
>
> You need to go back to the point where Dennis defined his Ha and Hn.
> They don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
>
> André
>

The fact that they do not mean embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is enough
to know that they must be utterly rejected out-of-hand.

That the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H is non-halting is the only thing
that is relevant to the correctness of embedded_H rejecting this input.

Everything else is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.

When I say "God damned" I mean in the sense of being eternally
incinerated in actual Hell.

Revelation 21:8 King James Version
....all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone: which is the second death.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<iZOdnZmSB6slHs3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8361&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8361

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:49:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:49:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
<hOGdnZiVNKYg6s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <iZOdnZmSB6slHs3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 50
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Fu2GP4Nauml0l3FbhTRwSq595jqkiIbe121Ftd30dVpiS5+FGvqg2NwqAmBWhpt4ZXeQR/efPQ1bm/J!HXb5MtQ3gVxcU26WqL/yuFMHJ9W1PrpwWkDwaIKIaKz0fJMgJucrslVfRZq7mLLicJmcJZqYZZ7C!zg==
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: 4065
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:49 UTC

On 4/8/2022 1:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Linz makes this difficult to understand because he simply erases key
>> elements of the definition of Ĥ:
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> You have erased them. Linz specifies Ĥ properly based on what H is
> supposed to do:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
> You have spent an inordinate amount of time over the years copying out
> those lines and dishonestly removing the key conditions. We all know
> why.
>

<Linz:1990:320>
Now Ĥ is a Turing machine, so that it will have some description in
Σ*, say ŵ. This string, in addition to being the description of Ĥ can
also be used as input string. We can therefore legitimately ask what
would happen if Ĥ is applied to ŵ.

q0ŵ ⊢* Ĥ ∞
if Ĥ applied to ŵ halts, and

q0ŵ ⊢* Ĥy1qny2
if Ĥ applied to ŵ does not halt. This is clearly nonsense. The
contradiction tells us that...
</Linz:1990:320>

In other words the copy of H embedded within Ĥ is incorrect to either
reject or accept its input.

When I show that embedded_H correctly rejects its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ I have
correctly refuted Linz.

Because the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H is non-halting when
embedded_H rejects this input as non-halting it is necessarily correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<F7KdnUaeUOveD83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8362&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8362

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 14:51:31 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:51:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
<hOGdnZiVNKYg6s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<iZOdnZmSB6slHs3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e65fc661-c6a8-4aaa-aea9-2d1ff0ecaecfn@googlegroups.com>
<Z6udncUXXLVhF83_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b01bc1fa-d83d-4e6a-bdbd-4de745e1482fn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <b01bc1fa-d83d-4e6a-bdbd-4de745e1482fn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <F7KdnUaeUOveD83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-696yE9HMrwJ7M4icPQKs2GB52bQQgTytU/qzktCGUAoXMiYnonYUT0K66uzWRrK0oLpNGHr7BcWJIqq!SPliVNPqmVPBg3DIqq60TVE4fXtugf22XuXdoOLRY8D7U0vYPwaoVRBm/klAQ0I1O5AfWhk9m9d+!KA==
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: 5486
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 19:51 UTC

On 4/8/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:20:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 2:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 2:49:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 1:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linz makes this difficult to understand because he simply erases key
>>>>>> elements of the definition of Ĥ:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> You have erased them. Linz specifies Ĥ properly based on what H is
>>>>> supposed to do:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have spent an inordinate amount of time over the years copying out
>>>>> those lines and dishonestly removing the key conditions. We all know
>>>>> why.
>>>>>
>>>> <Linz:1990:320>
>>>> Now Ĥ is a Turing machine, so that it will have some description in
>>>> Σ*, say ŵ. This string, in addition to being the description of Ĥ can
>>>> also be used as input string. We can therefore legitimately ask what
>>>> would happen if Ĥ is applied to ŵ.
>>>>
>>>> q0ŵ ⊢* Ĥ ∞
>>>> if Ĥ applied to ŵ halts, and
>>>>
>>>> q0ŵ ⊢* Ĥy1qny2
>>>> if Ĥ applied to ŵ does not halt. This is clearly nonsense. The
>>>> contradiction tells us that...
>>>> </Linz:1990:320>
>>>>
>>>> In other words the copy of H embedded within Ĥ is incorrect to either
>>>> reject or accept its input.
>>>
>>> What you fail to notice is that there is more than one H and H^ in play. For example:
>>>
>>> A: an H that always accepts
>>> R: an H that always rejects
>>>
>>> What the above is saying is that R / embedded_R rejecting <R^><R^> is incorrect and that A / embedded_A accepting <A^><A^> is incorrect. So not a *single* H but two *different* H's. This also means that A accepting <R^><R^> is correct and R rejecting <A^><A^> is correct.
>>>
>>> In other words, no H can give a correct halting/non-halting answer for an H^ built from it (even though some other H could).
>> So when I show that the H embedded within Ĥ does correctly decide its
>> input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩, Linz has been refuted.
>

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

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

Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
non-halting.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<A7ednRZ2DIJGR83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8364&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8364

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 20:01:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 20:01:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5ba98982-64c6-4169-93d3-170bdff4033fn@googlegroups.com>
<v8ednWienfL2Ic3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2B34K.792470$aT3.128169@fx09.iad>
<_YidneB_LP4CW83_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<GF44K.31231$r_.15461@fx41.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <GF44K.31231$r_.15461@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <A7ednRZ2DIJGR83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 115
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zz2EI+HUvlyz+5rLrTqLPftwv869xTyqfxxA6w+G/7hI9aHLrH0Gep+RSX+4UILuseU6XK8hg0C56om!x6vYighyE8TznsHbCkFiyVRuj/JOTiQaWDwPgchUBgfpLv90e+xib9SVVx6Z5ab0UQzpqnufwU5c!1Q==
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: 6818
 by: olcott - Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:01 UTC

On 4/8/2022 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/8/22 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 6:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/22 6:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 4:49 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 5:40:42 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 4:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> validating my 17 years worth of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you have no choice but to tolerate it. If someone wants
>>>>>>>>>>> to talk
>>>>>>>>>>> about why you are wrong, they will do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are wrong (for the C version of H) because H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>> false but P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>> halts. You are wrong about your TM H because H <Ĥ> <Ĥ>
>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>> qn, but Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> is a halting computation. (Feel free
>>>>>>>>>>> to deny
>>>>>>>>>>> any of these facts if the mood takes you.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state
>>>>>>>> then this
>>>>>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can
>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>> contradict this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed facts: (1) H(P,P) == false, (2) P(P) halts. You don't dispute
>>>>>>> either (indeed they come from you).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your new line in waffle is just an attempt to distract attention
>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>> very simple claim: that the wrong answer is the right one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even Linz got this wrong because it is counter-intuitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs (not any damn
>>>>>> thing else in the universe) to its own final state on the basis of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the behavior specified by these inputs
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is stipulated to be H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>     Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>     H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>     Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>     Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>
>>>> Explain exactly how the actual input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to embedded_H
>>>> reaches its own final state: ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that IS the proper trace, then it doesn't, but H and embedded_H
>>> have also failed to decide, because they will NEVER 'abort' their
>>> simulation and return an answer.
>> That is a proper trace and in the next step embedded_H aborts the
>> simulation of its input and transitions to its reject state.
>>
>>
>
> Then the words "Keep on Repeating" are a LIE.
>

I needed my readers to get one single point from the above sequence that
the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to embedded_H never reaches its own final
state: ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.

It has taken you about three months to get this one single point.

Now that you have gotten this point we move on to the next step,
embedded_H aborts its simulation and transitions to its own reject state.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8366&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8366

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:58:48 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:58:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me>
<__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me>
<5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me>
<TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vm35$rth$1@dont-email.me>
<2fmdne-EPaRPwc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vngt$526$1@dont-email.me>
<GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me>
<L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 122
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-MowoXal8jy+Srb01iEvOiVEUIO1zMOKqdwXkgs2AHcpAyMQpF5J0jL2vwrgkwhDcUYgxUOkjpAdMNJm!TgUpRYjMUVt2bZg+buPtYJyAw7DrdRwD99/UdyIVggFO7rIqzy8Bwde24HMuYHifJBxOHkhsBzVU
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: 7299
 by: olcott - Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:58 UTC

On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>> own final state.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>
>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>
>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>
>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>> reaches its own final state.
>
> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>
> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.

Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.

The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
that these inputs specify.

That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
state under any condition what-so-ever
IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
configurations.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor