Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

We define Linz H to base its halt status decision on the behavior of its
pure simulation of N steps of its input. N is either the number of steps
that it takes for its simulated input to reach its final state or the
number of steps required for H to match an infinite behavior pattern
proving that its simulated input would never reach its own final state
in any finite number of steps. In this case H aborts the simulation of
this input and transitions to H.qn.

Simulating halt deciders never determine whether or not their input
stops running. Every input to a simulating halt decider always stops
running either because it reached its final state or its simulation was
aborted. Simulating halt deciders determine whether or not the Linz
criteria can possibly be met … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start state.
A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Because it is known that the UTM simulation of a machine is
computationally equivalent to the direct execution of this same machine
H can always form its halt status decision on the basis of what the
behavior of the UTM simulation of its inputs would be.

When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has embedded_H simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ these steps would
keep repeating:
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩...

This shows that the simulated input to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never
reach its final state conclusively proving that this simulated input
never halts. This enables embedded_H to abort the simulation of its
input and correctly transition to Ĥ.qn.

It is the case that if embedded_H recognizes an infinitely repeating
pattern in the behavior of its simulated input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ such
that this correctly simulated input cannot possibly reach its own final
state then this is complete proof that this simulated input never halts.

Because a halt decider is a decider embedded_H is only accountable for
computing the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn on the basis of the
behavior specified by these inputs. embedded_H is not accountable for
the behavior of the computation that it is contained within: Ĥ applied
to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because this is not an actual input to embedded_H.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

olcott wrote:
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

You are the one with an halting problem: you are multiposting
again and again the same fallacies that have been debunked
numerous times.

You should halt. You didn't achieve anything, and never will. One
cannot fight a proven theorem.

On 1/25/2022 10:41 AM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> You are the one with an halting problem: you are multiposting
> again and again the same fallacies that have been debunked
> numerous times.
>

No one has ever correctly pointed out a single error in anything that I
just said. I did have to make my words increasingly, more clear to
eliminate the confusion of my reviewers.

> You should halt. You didn't achieve anything, and never will. One
> cannot fight a proven theorem.
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 1/25/2022 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

Holy shit give it a rest you impotent blithering twatwaffle.

On 1/25/2022 12:16 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 1/25/2022 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> Holy shit give it a rest you impotent blithering twatwaffle.
>

In other words you find yourself incompetent to point out any errors.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 8:39:22 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> We define Linz H to base its halt status decision on the behavior of its
> pure simulation of N steps of its input. N is either the number of steps
> that it takes for its simulated input to reach its final state or the
> number of steps required for H to match an infinite behavior pattern
> proving that its simulated input would never reach its own final state
> in any finite number of steps. In this case H aborts the simulation of
> this input and transitions to H.qn.

The error here is that N is not fully defined. There is no reason to
believe such "an infinite behavior pattern" exists.

On 1/25/2022 2:07 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 8:39:22 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>
>> We define Linz H to base its halt status decision on the behavior of its
>> pure simulation of N steps of its input. N is either the number of steps
>> that it takes for its simulated input to reach its final state or the
>> number of steps required for H to match an infinite behavior pattern
>> proving that its simulated input would never reach its own final state
>> in any finite number of steps. In this case H aborts the simulation of
>> this input and transitions to H.qn.
>
> The error here is that N is not fully defined. There is no reason to
> believe such "an infinite behavior pattern" exists.

The only reason to believe it is this conclusive proof that the
infinitely repeating pattern exists is this verified fact:

When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has embedded_H simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ these steps would
keep repeating:
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩...

100 Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩
110 embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩...
120 goto 100

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

On 1/25/22 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2022 10:41 AM, Python wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>
>> You are the one with an halting problem: you are multiposting
>> again and again the same fallacies that have been debunked
>> numerous times.
>>
>
> No one has ever correctly pointed out a single error in anything that I
> just said. I did have to make my words increasingly, more clear to
> eliminate the confusion of my reviewers.

You are wrong there, you just lie even to yourself and say that they
aren't really refutations.

You logic is so full of fallicies, I could write a book about the common
fallicies and problably create illustrations of most of them from your
own arguments.

>
>> You should halt. You didn't achieve anything, and never will. One
>> cannot fight a proven theorem.
>>
>>
>
>

On 1/25/22 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/25/2022 2:07 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 8:39:22 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>
>>> We define Linz H to base its halt status decision on the behavior of its
>>> pure simulation of N steps of its input. N is either the number of steps
>>> that it takes for its simulated input to reach its final state or the
>>> number of steps required for H to match an infinite behavior pattern
>>> proving that its simulated input would never reach its own final state
>>> in any finite number of steps. In this case H aborts the simulation of
>>> this input and transitions to H.qn.
>>
>> The error here is that N is not fully defined. There is no reason to
>> believe such "an infinite behavior pattern" exists.
>
> The only reason to believe it is this conclusive proof that the
> infinitely repeating pattern exists is this verified fact:
>
> When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has embedded_H simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ these steps would
> keep repeating:
> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩...
>
> 100 Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> 110 embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩...
> 120 goto 100
>

Except that pattern only exists in H^ if H never aborts. Thus you can
only prove that H^ never halts if H never aborts it to give the answer,
and thus is wrong.

Otherwise you logic becomes as unsound as you are because it is based on
incorrect premises.

On 1/25/22 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> We define Linz H to base its halt status decision on the behavior of its
> pure simulation of N steps of its input. N is either the number of steps
> that it takes for its simulated input to reach its final state or the
> number of steps required for H to match an infinite behavior pattern
> proving that its simulated input would never reach its own final state
> in any finite number of steps. In this case H aborts the simulation of
> this input and transitions to H.qn.
>
> Simulating halt deciders never determine whether or not their input
> stops running. Every input to a simulating halt decider always stops
> running either because it reached its final state or its simulation was
> aborted. Simulating halt deciders determine whether or not the Linz
> criteria can possibly be met … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>
> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz
> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single start state.
> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Because it is known that the UTM simulation of a machine is
> computationally equivalent to the direct execution of this same machine
> H can always form its halt status decision on the basis of what the
> behavior of the UTM simulation of its inputs would be.
>
> When Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ has embedded_H simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ these steps would
> keep repeating:
> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩...
>
> This shows that the simulated input to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never
> reach its final state conclusively proving that this simulated input
> never halts. This enables embedded_H to abort the simulation of its
> input and correctly transition to Ĥ.qn.
>
> It is the case that if embedded_H recognizes an infinitely repeating
> pattern in the behavior of its simulated input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ such
> that this correctly simulated input cannot possibly reach its own final
> state then this is complete proof that this simulated input never halts.
>
> Because a halt decider is a decider embedded_H is only accountable for
> computing the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn on the basis of the
> behavior specified by these inputs. embedded_H is not accountable for
> the behavior of the computation that it is contained within: Ĥ applied
> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because this is not an actual input to embedded_H.
>
>
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>

You really need to add revision bars to your updates. At a quick glance
I don't see anything different from the last message I showed your
errors in.

Maybe I find the minor change you made, but I suspect everything I said
still applies and shows that you are wrong.

FAIL.

You really do seemt to have a problem with infinite loops, and seem to
be stuck in one yourself.