In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
analysis.

PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
PO: am saying is incorrect.

"Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.

In a pointless followup, ID <Ar-dnTUoNf4VOTf9nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
adds:

PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows
PO: that incorrect questions do not have correct answers.

There is no point in discussing halting (or anything else) with someone
who thinks diagonalization is gibberish, and acknowledges that he's
being incorrect according to "conventional analysis".

Even if it made sense to follow "unconventional analysis" it would have
to be rigorously pinned down and subsequently adhered to. (I suspect,
that very change would render it conventional, and therefore
unpalatable). As it stands, the "uncoventional analysis" consists of
religious-like faith to some consistency doctrine, combined with the
rhetorical strategy of insisting "I am right" using whatever bit of
made-up nonsense that vaguely connects the intuition to the current
conversation thread.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

On 5/25/2021 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
> analysis.
>
> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>
> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>
> In a pointless followup, ID <Ar-dnTUoNf4VOTf9nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
> adds:
>
> PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows
> PO: that incorrect questions do not have correct answers.
>
> There is no point in discussing halting (or anything else) with someone
> who thinks diagonalization is gibberish, and acknowledges that he's
> being incorrect according to "conventional analysis".
>
> Even if it made sense to follow "unconventional analysis" it would have
> to be rigorously pinned down and subsequently adhered to. (I suspect,
> that very change would render it conventional, and therefore

Your assumption is incorrect.
Incorrect assumptions are the only basis for rebuttal of my proof.

You can certainly give up on trying to find an error, that is of course
not any actual rebuttal at all. You have been my very best recent reviewer.

> unpalatable). As it stands, the "uncoventional analysis" consists of
> religious-like faith to some consistency doctrine, combined with the
> rhetorical strategy of insisting "I am right" using whatever bit of
> made-up nonsense that vaguely connects the intuition to the current
> conversation thread.
>

*The following is the whole essence of my entire proof*

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

When input P to simulating halt decider H has the pathological
self-reference error (PSRE) simulating halt decider H decides this input
P on the basis of proxy input P2 that has the pathological
self-reference error removed.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{ u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

The pathological self-reference error arises in the halting theorem from
the fact that both return values: {0, 1} from Halts() to H_Hat() are
incorrect when H_Hat() is invoked with its own machine address as input.

When we define H_Hat2() by replacing the call to Halts() with a call to
Simulate()

u32 Simulate(u32 P, u32 I)
{ ((void(*)(int))P)(I);
return 1;
}

H_Hat2() never halts on its own machine address as input.
This key fact is leveraged to correctly decide halting:
Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);

We hypothesize that input P having the pathological self-reference error
(PSRE) can be substituted for equivalent proxy input P2 such that the
halting status of P2 derives the halting status of P. If this
hypothesis is correct it becomes the basis for refuting the halting
theorem.

To put this in concrete terms if Halts((u32)H_Hat2, (u32)H_Hat2);
provides the correct halting value for Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
then H_Hat becomes a decidable input. The rest of the proof will attempt
to show this.

Generic halt deciding principle for inputs having the pathological
self-reference error

Whenever input P has the pathological self-reference error such that a
simulating halt decider H must decide halting on an input that invokes
itself we define proxy input P2 copy of P such that the embedded
simulating halt decider is replaced with a simulator.

(a) Simulating halt decider H and simulator S are equivalent
computations for all inputs P that halt. This means that H correctly
decides halting on P if and only if P2 halts.

(b) Simulating halt decider H and simulator S are equivalent
computations for all inputs P that do not halt up to the point where H
stops simulating P. This means that H correctly decides not halting on P
if and only if P2 does not halt.

In other words: Halts correctly decides not halting on H_Hat because
H_Hat2 does not halt.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/2021 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
> analysis.
>
> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>
> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{ u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat.

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a
key possibility that it utterly ignores.

> In a pointless followup, ID <Ar-dnTUoNf4VOTf9nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
> adds:
>
> PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows
> PO: that incorrect questions do not have correct answers.
>
> There is no point in discussing halting (or anything else) with someone
> who thinks diagonalization is gibberish, and acknowledges that he's
> being incorrect according to "conventional analysis".
>
> Even if it made sense to follow "unconventional analysis" it would have
> to be rigorously pinned down and subsequently adhered to. (I suspect,
> that very change would render it conventional, and therefore
> unpalatable). As it stands, the "uncoventional analysis" consists of
> religious-like faith to some consistency doctrine, combined with the
> rhetorical strategy of insisting "I am right" using whatever bit of
> made-up nonsense that vaguely connects the intuition to the current
> conversation thread.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
> analysis.
>
> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>
> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.

Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis".
He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that. The phrase is
entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order
to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.

>
> In a pointless followup, ID <Ar-dnTUoNf4VOTf9nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
> adds:
>
> PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows
> PO: that incorrect questions do not have correct answers.
>
> There is no point in discussing halting (or anything else) with someone
> who thinks diagonalization is gibberish, and acknowledges that he's
> being incorrect according to "conventional analysis".

Talk about "off the diagonal" etc. is too abstract. "Whoosh...!" Ditto
"pure functions", "model of computation", "definition of halting"......

Yes, it really is pointless arguing with someone who misundertands every
concept he talks about, and everything you talk about, and doesn't
understand what a proof needs to look like to convince others etc.. May
as well "argue" with a bot!

Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can judge
for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any of the
following, then it's more or less pointless:

a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
[PO does not base his claims on logical reasoning, and so isn't
swayed by such. His claims are just his firmly held intuitions.]

b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
[Everyone saw the basic problems 6 months ago, Newcomers are also
not idiots who believe everything they read on unmoderated
newsgroups, and if they are perhaps they deserve to be led astray!
(I get that responders might want to make it clear for the
record that PO's claims are nonsense, and that be a point.)]

c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims of
getting his work published, so he will be awarded
the reputation points he feels he deserves, which will
convince Doug Lenat that he was wrong to not give PO
the job he wanted all those years ago, and maybe even to
belatedly offer him the position even now. (Surely not, if
only due to PO's age?)
[The whole project is a non-starter. On a scale of 1-100
in "ability to put together a coherent argument and express it
to a publishable standard", where say 93 is the level needed to
have a realistic prospect of being /considered/ by a publisher,
PO is located on a generous 0. Even with a few years of intensive
coaching by comp.theory regulars, the best improvement we might
hope for is for that to reach a peak of 0. It's just the
way PO is...]

Remember, there's no such thing as an "I spent [xxx] time arguing with
PO and it made NO DIFFERENCE" refund voucher. [Darn it, where did this
brand new 25min voucher I've just found come from? Someone's been in my
flat - these keep showing up!] :)

>
> Even if it made sense to follow "unconventional analysis" it would have
> to be rigorously pinned down and subsequently adhered to. (I suspect,
> that very change would render it conventional, and therefore
> unpalatable). As it stands, the "uncoventional analysis" consists of
> religious-like faith to some consistency doctrine, combined with the
> rhetorical strategy of insisting "I am right" using whatever bit of
> made-up nonsense that vaguely connects the intuition to the current
> conversation thread.

Exactly - just PO's intuitions, untrammelled by inconvenient logical
analysis.

Mike.

On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and
>> that
>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>> analysis.
>>
>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere
>> else.
>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then
>> what I
>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>
>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>
> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis".
>  He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is
> entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order
> to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.
>

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{ u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat.

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a
key possibility that it utterly ignores.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/2021 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis"
>>> and that
>>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>>> analysis.
>>>
>>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from
>>> somewhere else.
>>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then
>>> what I
>>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>>
>>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>>
>> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative
>> analysis".   He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.
>> The phrase is entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he
>> employs in order to reassure himself that he's right despite all the
>> persistent criticisms.
>>
>
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that
> there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat
> that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat.
>
> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
> to return any value to H_Hat.
>
> If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a
> key possibility that it utterly ignores.

In mathematical logic, the diagonal lemma (also known as diagonalization
lemma, self-reference lemma[1] or fixed point theorem) establishes the
existence of self-referential sentences in certain formal theories of
the natural numbers...

The diagonal lemma also requires that there be a systematic way of
assigning to every formula θ a natural number #(θ) called its Gödel
number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma

The key advantage of studying the effects of self-reference in x86
machine language is that we do not need the enormous extraneous
complexity of Gödelization, layer upon layer of indirect reference we
simply pass the machine address of the function to itself.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and
>> that
>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>> analysis.
>>
>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere
>> else.
>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then
>> what I
>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>
>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>
> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis".
>  He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is
> entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order
> to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{ u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat
<CORRECTION>When H_Hat is invoked with its own machine address is
input.</CORRECTION>

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a
key possibility that it utterly ignores.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and
>> that
>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>> analysis.
>>
>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere
>> else.
>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then
>> what I
>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>
>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>
> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis".
>  He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is
> entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order
> to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{ u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat in the
computation Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a
key possibility that it utterly ignores.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
> to return any value to H_Hat.

And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.

Fundamental requirement of a Computation.

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>
> a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
<cut>
> b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
<cut>
> c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...

I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't. For
me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
a crank. This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
enemy. Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
or the other.

It's a strange form of interaction. I often wonder what it would be
like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...

--
Ben.

On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>
>> a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> <cut>
>> b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> <cut>
>> c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>
> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't. For
> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> a crank. This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> enemy. Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> or the other.
>
> It's a strange form of interaction. I often wonder what it would be
> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>

I create my own language to connect the ideas together in my own mind.

The utterly eliminates the problem of boxing myself into any
conventional misconceptions. Now that my breakthrough is complete I need
to learn how to translate my insights into the closest conventional
terminology.

Now that Kaz forced me to finally look at diagonalization in the halting
problem I find that it is quite simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

And thus nothing like the horrifically convoluted mess of the diagonal
lemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>
> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>
> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>

You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()

Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
stupid thing to keep repeating.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{ u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
}

http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf

It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>
>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>
>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>
>
> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>
> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>   Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
> }
>
> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>
>
> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>
>
>

IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
flunk the Turing Test)

You seem to have a blind spot on this, you claim that Halts never
returns an answer to H_Hat because of infinite recursion, but in the
case of main calling H_Hat which calls Halts it MUST, or Halts can not
return its answer to Main.

THIS is the proof that H_Hat is a Halting Computation, and that all you
logic is a pile of useless goo.

You CLAIM to be working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory,
but you try to redefine fundamental definition so you aren't.

On 5/25/21 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>>
>
>
> I create my own language to connect the ideas together in my own mind.
>
> The utterly eliminates the problem of boxing myself into any
> conventional misconceptions. Now that my breakthrough is complete I need
> to learn how to translate my insights into the closest conventional
> terminology.
>
> Now that Kaz forced me to finally look at diagonalization in the halting
> problem I find that it is quite simple
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA
>
> And thus nothing like the horrifically convoluted mess of the diagonal
> lemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma
>

YOUR 'Breakthrough' is that by ignoring the actual definitions of a
problem you can create a proof so full of double speak that YOU have
gas-lighted yourself to the point that you don't understand how bad it is.

I Challenge you to try to submit this to any REAL peer review journal,
and at best you might make the April Fools copy of the journal. Maybe
you could get it into JIR. It does sort of match their theme.

On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>
>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>
>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>
>>
>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>
>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>
>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>> {
>>   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>   if (Input_Halts)
>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>   u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>   Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>> }
>>
>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>
>>
>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>
>>
>>
>
> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
> flunk the Turing Test)
>

I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to
comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever
called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too
unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.

> You seem to have a blind spot on this, you claim that Halts never
> returns an answer to H_Hat because of infinite recursion, but in the
> case of main calling H_Hat which calls Halts it MUST, or Halts can not
> return its answer to Main.
>
>
> THIS is the proof that H_Hat is a Halting Computation, and that all you
> logic is a pile of useless goo.
>
> You CLAIM to be working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory,
> but you try to redefine fundamental definition so you aren't.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/25/21 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever
>>>>> needing
>>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>>
>>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>>
>>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
>>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>>
>>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
>>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>>
>>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>>> {
>>>    u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>>    if (Input_Halts)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>>    Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>>> }
>>>
>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
>>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
>> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
>> flunk the Turing Test)
>>
>
> I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to
> comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever
> called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
>
> If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too
> unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.
>

AND what YOU don't understand is the Computation Theory principle that a
Computation (and thus a Turing Machine) MUST behave the same for all
invocations of it for a given input. Thus if H won't return an answer to
H^, then it CAN'T return the answer when asked directly. THus H can NOT
be a finite computation for the problem of H^,H^.

As has been pointed out, the code you have described for H fails to be a
real computation, and thus is NOT the equivalent for a Turing Machine,
and thus can't be a candidate for H.

If H^(H^) -> H(H^,H^) -> H^(H^) was a REAL infinite recursion, then
H(H^,H^) can't ever return to anybody, and thus doesn't answer.

Once H has the smarts to break the loop so it can answer when asked
directly, it need to do the same when called by H^, as it is no o=longer
called in infinite recursion.

That Software Engineering principle applies to TRULY infinite recursion,
not potential infinite recursion or infinite recursion of a case that
isn't what was given.

On 5/26/2021 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever
>>>>>> needing
>>>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
>>>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>>>
>>>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>>>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
>>>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>>>
>>>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>>>> {
>>>>    u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>>>    if (Input_Halts)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>>>    Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
>>>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>>>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
>>> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
>>> flunk the Turing Test)
>>>
>>
>> I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to
>> comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever
>> called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
>>
>> If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too
>> unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.
>>
>
> AND what YOU don't understand is the Computation Theory principle that a
> Computation (and thus a Turing Machine) MUST behave the same for all
> invocations of it for a given input. Thus if H won't return an answer to
> H^, then it CAN'T return the answer when asked directly. THus H can NOT
> be a finite computation for the problem of H^,H^.
>

The case that I am showing is a hierarchy where only the pinnacle of the
hierarchy gets a return value.

> As has been pointed out, the code you have described for H fails to be a
> real computation, and thus is NOT the equivalent for a Turing Machine,
> and thus can't be a candidate for H.
>

No you don't understand that the entire simulation hierarchy is data
that the simulating halt decider is processing on the basis of its inputs.

> If H^(H^) -> H(H^,H^) -> H^(H^) was a REAL infinite recursion, then
> H(H^,H^) can't ever return to anybody, and thus doesn't answer.
>

My process of proxy inputs explains this completely yet no one here is
smart and open minded enough to even try to understand.

> Once H has the smarts to break the loop so it can answer when asked
> directly, it need to do the same when called by H^, as it is no o=longer
> called in infinite recursion.
>

As I keep telling you and you stupidly ignore I am only analyzing Ĥ(<Ĥ>)
I am not analyzing H(<Ĥ,Ĥ>). Changing the subject has been the most
common tactic that people use to keep up their rebuttals and simply
ignore that I made my point.

> That Software Engineering principle applies to TRULY infinite recursion,
> not potential infinite recursion or infinite recursion of a case that
> isn't what was given.
>

Inputs with the pathological self reference error P are transformed into
equivalent inputs without the pathological self-reference error P2 and
software engineering is applied to P2.

Every input P that contains a simulating halt decider that it invokes on
P (PSRE) has this simulating halt decider H replaced by simulator S
defining a new input P2. The halting value of P2 provides the correct
halting value of P.

It is very difficult to understand that this is correct, yet this is the
key basis for correctly deciding otherwise undecidable inputs. Only by
explaining this as proxy inputs can it be validated.

This is all explained now on pages 1-2:
http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>
>> a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> <cut>
>> b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> <cut>
>> c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>
> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't. For
> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> a crank. This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> enemy. Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> or the other.

Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun
stops, stop!". I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your
description but that's ok. I quite like doing sudoku and similar
puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those
achieve anything useful at the end!

>
> It's a strange form of interaction. I often wonder what it would be
> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...

I've wondered this too. Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be
actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks
definitely wouldn't last long. In PO's case, he is generally polite,
just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times.
I don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory
Christmas drink! :)

Mike.

On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>
>> a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> <cut>
>> b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> <cut>
>> c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>
> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't. For
> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> a crank. This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> enemy. Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> or the other.
>
> It's a strange form of interaction. I often wonder what it would be
> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>

You have already been so biased against my position and laser focused on
rebuttal that you never understand what I am actually saying because you
are simply not paying enough attention.

Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next
step is to refute this proof directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was
the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect
reference of the diagonal lemma.

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 5/26/2021 10:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
>
> Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun
> stops, stop!".  I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your
> description but that's ok.  I quite like doing sudoku and similar
> puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those
> achieve anything useful at the end!
>
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>
> I've wondered this too.  Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be
> actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks
> definitely wouldn't last long.  In PO's case, he is generally polite,
> just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times. I
> don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory
> Christmas drink! :)
>
>
> Mike.
>

The proof that people are simply not understanding what I am saying is
that nothing that I have said has had any correct rebuttal, except that
I have used technical terms in ways that are inconsistent with their
conventional usage.

The notion of transforming an input having the pathological
self-reference error (PSRE) into an equivalent input not having (PSRE)
that acts as a proxy halt deciding basis for the original input has not
yet been evaluated. This notion is the key to understanding that the
essence of my proof has been right all along.

Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next
step is to refute this proof directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was
the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect
reference of the diagonal lemma.

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

The bandwidth wasted on what may be a cycle detector
is enormous. There are so many other ideas worthy of
discussion... PO is unable to halt. This group is
not his blog domain.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:31:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/26/2021 10:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> > On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
> >>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
> >>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
> >>>
> >>> a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> >> <cut>
> >>> b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> >> <cut>
> >>> c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
> >>
> >> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't. For
> >> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> >> a crank. This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> >> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> >> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> >> enemy. Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> >> or the other.
> >
> > Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun
> > stops, stop!". I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your
> > description but that's ok. I quite like doing sudoku and similar
> > puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those
> > achieve anything useful at the end!
> >
> >>
> >> It's a strange form of interaction. I often wonder what it would be
> >> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
> >
> > I've wondered this too. Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be
> > actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks
> > definitely wouldn't last long. In PO's case, he is generally polite,
> > just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times. I
> > don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory
> > Christmas drink! :)
> >
> >
> > Mike.
> >
> The proof that people are simply not understanding what I am saying is
> that nothing that I have said has had any correct rebuttal, except that
> I have used technical terms in ways that are inconsistent with their
> conventional usage.
>
> The notion of transforming an input having the pathological
> self-reference error (PSRE) into an equivalent input not having (PSRE)
> that acts as a proxy halt deciding basis for the original input has not
> yet been evaluated. This notion is the key to understanding that the
> essence of my proof has been right all along.
> Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next
> step is to refute this proof directly.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA
>
> I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was
> the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect
> reference of the diagonal lemma.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma
>
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

On 5/26/2021 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>>
>
> You have already been so biased against my position and laser focused on
> rebuttal that you never understand what I am actually saying because you
> are simply not paying enough attention.

BARF!

>
> Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next
> step is to refute this proof directly.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA
>
> I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was
> the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect
> reference of the diagonal lemma.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma
>

On 5/26/21 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/26/2021 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/21 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating
>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever
>>>>>>> needing
>>>>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>>>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any
>>>>> value
>>>>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>>>>
>>>>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>>>>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a
>>>>> very
>>>>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>>>>
>>>>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>>>>> {
>>>>>     u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>>>>     if (Input_Halts)
>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>>>>     Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream
>>>>> pie and
>>>>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>>>>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly
>>>> called
>>>> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
>>>> flunk the Turing Test)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to
>>> comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever
>>> called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
>>>
>>> If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too
>>> unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.
>>>
>>
>> AND what YOU don't understand is the Computation Theory principle that a
>> Computation (and thus a Turing Machine) MUST behave the same for all
>> invocations of it for a given input. Thus if H won't return an answer to
>> H^, then it CAN'T return the answer when asked directly. THus H can NOT
>> be a finite computation for the problem of H^,H^.
>>
>
> The case that I am showing is a hierarchy where only the pinnacle of the
> hierarchy gets a return value.

So you admit that when H^ is the 'top' machine, i.e. when we are just
running H^(H^) that H will return its answer to it.

For some reason you seem to reject that this is even possible.

>
>> As has been pointed out, the code you have described for H fails to be a
>> real computation, and thus is NOT the equivalent for a Turing Machine,
>> and thus can't be a candidate for H.
>>
>
> No you don't understand that the entire simulation hierarchy is data
> that the simulating halt decider is processing on the basis of its inputs.

Unless we are running H^ as the actual Turing machine and the simulation
we are refering to is inside it.
>
>> If H^(H^) -> H(H^,H^) ->  H^(H^) was a REAL infinite recursion, then
>> H(H^,H^) can't ever return to anybody, and thus doesn't answer.
>>
>
> My process of proxy inputs explains this completely yet no one here is
> smart and open minded enough to even try to understand.

Nope. It doesn't

>
>> Once H has the smarts to break the loop so it can answer when asked
>> directly, it need to do the same when called by H^, as it is no o=longer
>> called in infinite recursion.
>>
>
> As I keep telling you and you stupidly ignore I am only analyzing Ĥ(<Ĥ>)
> I am not analyzing H(<Ĥ,Ĥ>). Changing the subject has been the most
> common tactic that people use to keep up their rebuttals and simply
> ignore that I made my point.
>

Ok. I'll hold you to that. Just remember that the ONLY machine that H^
is designed to counter is H, showing that any other machine answer it
correctly proves nothing.

>> That Software Engineering principle applies to TRULY infinite recursion,
>> not potential infinite recursion or infinite recursion of a case that
>> isn't what was given.
>>
>
> Inputs with the pathological self reference error P are transformed into
> equivalent inputs without the pathological self-reference error P2 and
> software engineering is applied to P2.
>
> Every input P that contains a simulating halt decider that it invokes on
> P (PSRE) has this simulating halt decider H replaced by simulator S
> defining a new input P2. The halting value of P2 provides the correct
> halting value of P.

Which means you are deciding about black cats by using information about
white dogs. So it doesn't prove anything.

>
> It is very difficult to understand that this is correct, yet this is the
> key basis for correctly deciding otherwise undecidable inputs. Only by
> explaining this as proxy inputs can it be validated.
>
> This is all explained now on pages 1-2:
> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>
>

We KNOW that H^(H^) does halt, so even if H(H^2,H^2) can correctly say
that H^2 is non-halting, that does NOT say that H^(H^) is non-halting.

THAT fact is not established, and is actually WRONG>