Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.

Every element in the above set does not halt.

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

On 2/17/22 1:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
> its reject state.
>
> Every element in the above set does not halt.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>

Your 'Theroem' has been proven to be a false conjecture.

H applied to <H^> <H^> must abort its simulation or it can never halt
and give the required answer.

But if H <H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn, then by the definition of a Halt
Decider we must have that H^ <H^> must never halt, but we have
established by definition and construction that H^ <H^> will go to H^.Qn
and Halt, thus H was wrong, and your 'Theorem' is proven wrong.

The problem is equivication of the meaning of the words and the
definition of what H is.

H must be a PREDEFINED algorithm/Turing Machine.

This means that H either WILL or it WON'T abort its simulation of the
input <H^> <H^>, there is no meaning of the word 'must' in this context.

If is DOESN'T abort, then it is correct that its input is non-halting,
but H is wrong because it didn't give that answer.

If it DOES abort, then that is the wrong answer.

The paradox is resolved by noting that we have two different H^ in view
here, the H^ built on the H that doesn't, and the H^ built on the H that
does, these are different Hs so different H^s.

YOU FAIL.

On 2/17/2022 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/17/22 1:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>> its reject state.
>>
>> Every element in the above set does not halt.
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>
>>
>
> Your 'Theroem' has been proven to be a false conjecture.
>
> H applied to <H^> <H^> must abort its simulation or it can never halt
> and give the required answer.
>
It is not and never has been H. It had always been the copy of H called
embedded_H that has an appended infinite loop. I have told you this at
least fifty times and you can't remember.

Because embedded_H must abort its simulation to give an answer the
correct answer is its reject state.

--
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 2/17/22 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/22 1:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>> its reject state.
>>>
>>> Every element in the above set does not halt.
>>>
>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your 'Theroem' has been proven to be a false conjecture.
>>
>> H applied to <H^> <H^> must abort its simulation or it can never halt
>> and give the required answer.
>>
> It is not and never has been H. It had always been the copy of H called
> embedded_H that has an appended infinite loop. I have told you this at
> least fifty times and you can't remember.
>
> Because embedded_H must abort its simulation to give an answer the
> correct answer is its reject state.
>

No, the infinite loop is NOT part of the copy of H that is inside H^,
but is the code added OUTSIDE the copy of H.

If the copy of H, from the path between H.Q0 to H.Qy/H/Qn does not act
exactly like H did, then you did your operation wrong and are just being
a pathelogical liar.

If you can actually show that it is possible to actually get a different
result after doing the exact steps described, then please show the
ACTUAL TURING MACHINE, that when transformed from H to H' by adding that
infinite loop changes its behavior in which state (Qy or Qn) that it
goes to. That would make you world famous in Mathematics, on the level
or above of Bertrand Russel.

You of course will not be able to do this, as you don't seem to actually
know what you are talkinga about, but are just assuming this Fairy Dust
Powered Unicorn is possible.

FAIL.

On 2/17/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/17/22 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/22 1:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>> its reject state.
>>>>
>>>> Every element in the above set does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'Theroem' has been proven to be a false conjecture.
>>>
>>> H applied to <H^> <H^> must abort its simulation or it can never halt
>>> and give the required answer.
>>>
>> It is not and never has been H. It had always been the copy of H
>> called embedded_H that has an appended infinite loop. I have told you
>> this at least fifty times and you can't remember.
>>
>> Because embedded_H must abort its simulation to give an answer the
>> correct answer is its reject state.
>>
>
> No, the infinite loop

It never was any sort of loop. You consistently fail to pay the
slightest bit of attention.

--
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 2/18/22 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/22 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 1:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every element in the above set does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your 'Theroem' has been proven to be a false conjecture.
>>>>
>>>> H applied to <H^> <H^> must abort its simulation or it can never
>>>> halt and give the required answer.
>>>>
>>> It is not and never has been H. It had always been the copy of H
>>> called embedded_H that has an appended infinite loop. I have told you
>>> this at least fifty times and you can't remember.
>>>
>>> Because embedded_H must abort its simulation to give an answer the
>>> correct answer is its reject state.
>>>
>>
>> No, the infinite loop
>
> It never was any sort of loop. You consistently fail to pay the
> slightest bit of attention.
>

Then you have just been lying. YOU just said that embedded_H has an
infinite loop appended.

I think you mind has gone and you are fogetting what you are talking about.