On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 10:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-01 14:58:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-28 22:47:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> These two lines contradict each other,
>>>>> so at least one of them is false,
>>>>> possibly both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a paraphrase of Linz bottom of page 319.
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>> Linz doesn't say that both are true, just one, and that
>>>
>>> M and w determe which one.
>>> Mikko
>>
>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>> as possible.
>
> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>

Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
points that you failed to address until you address them completely.

--
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 <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>> as possible.
>>
>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>
> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.

I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
at Linz's proof yet.

--
Ben.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>> as possible.
>>
>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>
> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.

Having seen the other non-responsive replies I do get what you mean
now. Basically you can't correct your mistake you will just keep
repeating what you think I am saying. Fine by me.

--
Ben.

On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>
>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>
> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
> at Linz's proof yet.
>

Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other mapping?

--
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 <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>>> as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>
>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
>> at Linz's proof yet.
>
> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
> mapping?

So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.

By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.

--
Ben.

On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>
>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>> mapping?
>
> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>
> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>

You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

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

The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/22 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>>> as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>
>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>
>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>
>
> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other mapping?
>

Right, and the Halting Mapping of <M> w is based on the behavior of M
applied to w.

So, H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible for the behavior of H^ applied
to <H^>

So, you are just proving that you aren't talking about Halting.

On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2, a
>>>>>> page
>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>> looked
>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>
>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>> mapping?
>>
>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>
>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by all
>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>
>
> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>

Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.

FAIL,

On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a
>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2, a
>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>> looked
>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>> mapping?
>>>
>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>
>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by all
>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>
>>
>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>
> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>
> FAIL,
>

You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think that
deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/22 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 10:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-03-01 14:58:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2022 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-28 22:47:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> These two lines contradict each other,
>>>> so at least one of them is false,
>>>> possibly both.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a paraphrase of Linz bottom of page 319.
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>
>> Linz doesn't say that both are true, just one, and that
>> M and w determe which one.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear as
> possible.
>
He makes a few mistakes or uses some poor notations, but the meaning of
what he says is actually very clear if you know the Theory.

The fact you don't, might be why you are confused.

I will admit, I didn't learn for Linz, but the earlier sources that you
had to work a bit harder to understand, but it was possible to
understand them.

On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2,
>>>>>>>> a page
>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>>> looked
>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>> mapping?
>>>>
>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by all
>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>> prepared to
>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has
>>> anything to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>
>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>
>> FAIL,
>>
>
> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
> inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think that
> deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>

Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the CORRECT
mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on the behavior of
M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible for the
behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.

So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that your H
is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a Halt Decider.

Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?

On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than
>>>>>>>>>> a clear
>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2,
>>>>>>>>> a page
>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>>>> looked
>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>
>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by
>>>>> all
>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>> prepared to
>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state
>>>> by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has
>>>> anything to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>
>>> FAIL,
>>>
>>
>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think
>> that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>
>
> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the CORRECT
> mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on the behavior of
> M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible for the
> behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>
> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that your H
> is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a Halt Decider.
>
> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?

The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT

--
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 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than
>>>>>>>>>>> a clear
>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But
>>>>>> by all
>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state
>>>>> by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has
>>>>> anything to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL,
>>>>
>>>
>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think
>>> that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>
>>
>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on the
>> behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible
>> for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>
>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that your
>> H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a Halt Decider.
>>
>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>
> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>

But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for embedded_H if
it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.

Remember definitions!!!!

For a Halt Decider H

H applied to <M> w must go to H.Qy if M appllied to w Halts and to H.Qn
if M applied to w never halts.

Since you claim the answer that embedded_H when given <H^> <H^> is NOT
dependent on H^ applied to <H^> then embedded_H is NOT a Halt Decider.

Simple Meaning of the words, right?

FAIL.

On 3/2/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the
>>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But
>>>>>>> by all
>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state
>>>>>> by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has
>>>>>> anything to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>>>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think
>>>> that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on the
>>> behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible
>>> for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>>
>>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that
>>> your H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a Halt
>>> Decider.
>>>
>>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>>
>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>
>
> But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for embedded_H if
> it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.
Because it is not an input to the decider it is out-of-scope for the
decider. If I ask you: How long is your car? and you measure the height
of your front door you gave me a wrong answer.

--
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 <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>
>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>> mapping?
>>
>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>
> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
groundless. Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.

--
Ben.

On 3/2/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating
>>>>>>>>>>> the key
>>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But
>>>>>>>> by all
>>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>> state by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything to do with the halt status decision of
>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status
>>>>>>> of itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>>>>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think
>>>>> that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>>>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on the
>>>> behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible
>>>> for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>>>
>>>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that
>>>> your H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a Halt
>>>> Decider.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>>>
>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>
>>
>> But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for embedded_H
>> if it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.
> Because it is not an input to the decider it is out-of-scope for the
> decider. If I ask you: How long is your car? and you measure the height
> of your front door you gave me a wrong answer.
>

Nope, you have it backwards. The REQUIREMENTS of H says it needs to.

Can you actually provide a reference for this restriction on requirements?

A decider may not be ABLE to compute something that it can't get by
processing its input, but it can be REQUIRED to do so, which just proves
that the mapping isn't computable, which is EXACTLY the issue here.

FAIL.

On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>> mapping?
>>>
>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>
>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
> groundless. Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>

You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are dishonest.

--
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 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2,
>>>>>>>> a page
>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>>> looked
>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>> mapping?
>>>>
>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by all
>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>> prepared to
>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>
>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>>
>
> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are dishonest.
>

Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>
>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>> groundless. Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>
> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are
> dishonest.

OK, you can continue to post ignorant nonsense. No skin off my nose...

Here's where you stand. You reject the most basic fact about the
halting problem as evidenced by this exchange.

BB: "First, do you really disagree with my simple statement that a
computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a halting
computation?"

PO: "yes".

You say utter nonsense like this:

"the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
halting computation"

You equivocate about the most elementary things:

"No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."

"I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."

and you refuse to answer simple direct questions. For example even
after asking 12 times I got no answer to this:

What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩?

and most recently

Does embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transition to embedded_H.qy and then loop, or
does embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transition to embedded_H.qn?

And this is to say nothing of the time you wasted on your junk H and P
where you explicitly claimed that false was the correct answer for a
halting computation.

And then there was Halts that was correct because of what would happen
if line 15 were commented out, and let's no forget your original
delusion that

"Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."

when you had no such thing.

Look around you -- there is nothing but a smouldering pile of
uncorrected mistakes and arrant nonsense. And you reject the only offer
of help you've had in a long time.

--
Ben.

On 3/2/2022 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>> the key
>>>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY
>>>>>>>>>> from its
>>>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.
>>>>>>>>> But by all
>>>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>> state by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything to do with the halt status decision of
>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status
>>>>>>>> of itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>>>>>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think
>>>>>> that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>>>>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on
>>>>> the behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS
>>>>> responsible for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that
>>>>> your H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a
>>>>> Halt Decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>>>>
>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for embedded_H
>>> if it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.
>> Because it is not an input to the decider it is out-of-scope for the
>> decider. If I ask you: How long is your car? and you measure the
>> height of your front door you gave me a wrong answer.
>>
>
> Nope, you have it backwards. The REQUIREMENTS of H says it needs to.
>
> Can you actually provide a reference for this restriction on requirements?
>
> A decider may not be ABLE to compute something that it can't get by
> processing its input, but it can be REQUIRED to do so, which just proves
> that the mapping isn't computable, which is EXACTLY the issue here.
>
> FAIL.

We make it even simpler a decider is required to compute the mapping
from its finite string input to an accept or reject state.

Anything outside of this pattern is like computing the sum of an office
building and the verb "running".

--
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 3/2/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than
>>>>>>>>>> a clear
>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2,
>>>>>>>>> a page
>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>>>> looked
>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>
>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by
>>>>> all
>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>> prepared to
>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>>>
>>
>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are dishonest.
>>
>
> Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.

Most often your rebuttals are only confused gibberish.

Your key mistake is not having the slightest idea of how simulating halt
deciders work even though I have explained it many hundreds of times.

You keep thinking that if a simulating halt decider must abort its
simulation to report that its input specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations that this makes this input halt and thus the reported
non-halting wrong.

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

The above specifies an infinite loop even when its simulation has been
aborted to report "infinite loop".

--
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 3/2/22 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key
>>>>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY
>>>>>>>>>>> from its
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.
>>>>>>>>>> But by all
>>>>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>>> state by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything to do with the halt status decision of
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status
>>>>>>>>> of itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still
>>>>>>> think that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>>>>>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on
>>>>>> the behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS
>>>>>> responsible for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that
>>>>>> your H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a
>>>>>> Halt Decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>>>>>
>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for embedded_H
>>>> if it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.
>>> Because it is not an input to the decider it is out-of-scope for the
>>> decider. If I ask you: How long is your car? and you measure the
>>> height of your front door you gave me a wrong answer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you have it backwards. The REQUIREMENTS of H says it needs to.
>>
>> Can you actually provide a reference for this restriction on
>> requirements?
>>
>> A decider may not be ABLE to compute something that it can't get by
>> processing its input, but it can be REQUIRED to do so, which just
>> proves that the mapping isn't computable, which is EXACTLY the issue
>> here.
>>
>> FAIL.
>
> We make it even simpler a decider is required to compute the mapping
> from its finite string input to an accept or reject state.
>
> Anything outside of this pattern is like computing the sum of an office
> building and the verb "running".
>

To the CORRECT accept / reject state.

The DEFINITION of Halting says it maps <M> w to what M applied to w
does, so the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> IS the deciding factor.

And YOUR logic that it doesn't need to take that into account is just
proof that you decider isn't a Halt Decider.

You fail the Requirements test.

On 3/2/22 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than
>>>>>>>>>>> a clear
>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But
>>>>>> by all
>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
>>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
>>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are dishonest.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.
>
> Most often your rebuttals are only confused gibberish.
>
> Your key mistake is not having the slightest idea of how simulating halt
> deciders work even though I have explained it many hundreds of times.
>
> You keep thinking that if a simulating halt decider must abort its
> simulation to report that its input specifies a non-halting sequence of
> configurations that this makes this input halt and thus the reported
> non-halting wrong.
>
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
> The above specifies an infinite loop even when its simulation has been
> aborted to report "infinite loop".
>

It isn't the decider aborting that makes H^ Halting, it is H going to
H.Qn that makes H^ non-halting (since H^ x will always go to H^.Qn and
halt if H x x goes to H.Qn)

H is perfectly allowed to abort its simulation and do something else,
either loop forever or go to H.Qy, and H^ will stay non-halting, its
just H didn't give the right answer.

You are just confused about how cause and effect work.

FAIL.

On 3/2/2022 9:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>> groundless. Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>>
>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are
>> dishonest.
>
> OK, you can continue to post ignorant nonsense. No skin off my nose...
>

My paper is about the infinite set of simulating halt deciders applied
to each element of the set of Turing machine descriptions.

When-so-ever shd ∈ simulating_halt_deciders simulates tmd ∈
Turing_machine_descriptions would never stop unless aborted then
shd.rejects(tmd)

This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new points.

--
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 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY
>>>>>>>>>>>> from its
>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.
>>>>>>>>>>> But by all
>>>>>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>>>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>>>> state by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything to do with the halt status decision of
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt
>>>>>>>>>> status of itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping
>>>>>>>> from their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben
>>>>>>>> still think that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>>>>>>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on
>>>>>>> the behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS
>>>>>>> responsible for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that
>>>>>>> your H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a
>>>>>>> Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for
>>>>> embedded_H if it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.
>>>> Because it is not an input to the decider it is out-of-scope for the
>>>> decider. If I ask you: How long is your car? and you measure the
>>>> height of your front door you gave me a wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you have it backwards. The REQUIREMENTS of H says it needs to.
>>>
>>> Can you actually provide a reference for this restriction on
>>> requirements?
>>>
>>> A decider may not be ABLE to compute something that it can't get by
>>> processing its input, but it can be REQUIRED to do so, which just
>>> proves that the mapping isn't computable, which is EXACTLY the issue
>>> here.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> We make it even simpler a decider is required to compute the mapping
>> from its finite string input to an accept or reject state.
>>
>> Anything outside of this pattern is like computing the sum of an
>> office building and the verb "running".
>>
>
> To the CORRECT accept / reject state.
>

IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT
IF IS IS NOT AN INPUT THEN IT DOESN'T COUNT