On 3/2/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>

Except that since it rejects halting machines, so isn't a Halt Decider.

We know that as for ANY H that for the input <H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn, we
can show by construction that the H^ that includes a copy of this H,
that H^ applied to <H^> will Halt. and thus H applied to <H^> <H^> is
wrong since for ALL Halt Decider H applied to <M> w must go to H.Qy if M
applied to w halts, and since we showed H^ applied to <H^> Halts if H
<H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn then H <H^> <H^> needed to have gone to H.Qy

FAIL.

On 3/2/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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

On 3/2/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>

STILL WRONG.

NO element of your set is a correct Halting Decider. PERIOD.

FAIL.

On 2022-03-03 03:13:35 +0000, olcott said:

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

Irrelevant, as Linz' Definition 12.1 does not use the word "decider" and
does not require that the solution to the halting problem be a decider.

Mikko

On 3/3/2022 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-03-03 03:13:35 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> We make it even simpler a decider is required to compute the mapping
>> from its finite string input to an accept or reject state.
>
> Irrelevant, as Linz' Definition 12.1 does not use the word "decider" and
> does not require that the solution to the halting problem be a decider.
>
> Mikko
>

All halt deciders are deciders.

--
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 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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)
>

As I have said many dozens of times now

NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider must
abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite simulation of
this input that this input specifies an infinite sequence of
configurations.

When-so-ever the simulated input to a simulating halt decider
demonstrates behavior that meets the NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE then
the simulating halt decider is always correct to reject this input.

The above is proved totally true entirely on the basis of the meaning of
its words just like this: If we have a black cat then we know we have a
cat.

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

The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx is ONLY responsible for computing the mapping
of its inputs to an accept or reject state.

embedded_H is not responsible for determining the halt status of itself
or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because neither of these are
inputs to embedded_H.

> 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.
>
>

--
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 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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)
>>
>
> As I have said many dozens of times now
>
> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider must
> abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite simulation of
> this input that this input specifies an infinite sequence of
> configurations.

Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)

Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.

This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source, that
you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic argument is
unsound.

The DEFINITION of the correct answer is based not on the PARTIAL
simulation done by H, but the actual behavior of the machine, or the
simulation by a REAL UTM.

>
> When-so-ever the simulated input to a simulating halt decider
> demonstrates behavior that meets the NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE then
> the simulating halt decider is always correct to reject this input.

Right, if it CORRECTLY demonstrates, but simulating halt decider must
consider ALL The behavior in the input, which if it includes a copy of
the Halt Decider itself, means it needs to consider its own behavior.

You H doesn't, so is UNSOUND.

Note, you make invalid transformations in your analysis that are ONLY
true if H NEVER aborts its simulation, so if it does, it has made its
full arguemnt unsound.

>
> The above is proved totally true entirely on the basis of the meaning of
> its words just like this: If we have a black cat then we know we have a
> cat.

Except that you actually have a Skunk, not a black cat, you just THINK
you have a black cat.

>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
IFF H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy (which is only correct if H^ <H^> Halts)

> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
IFF H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn (which is only correct if H^ <H^> Never halts)

>
> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx is ONLY responsible for computing the mapping
> of its inputs to an accept or reject state.

Right, and the input <H^> <H^> represents the machine H^ applied to <H^>
or equivalently UTM applied to <H^> <H^>

It is shown, and you have agreed that if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn then H^
applied to <H^> will Halt.

This means that H was WRONG. PERIOD, BY DEFINITION. PROVEN.

>
> embedded_H is not responsible for determining the halt status of itself
> or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because neither of these are
> inputs to embedded_H.

The it isn't a Halt Decider, as a Halt decider IS responsible for the
machine that its input represents.

FAIL. BY DEFINITION.

Your insistance otherwie just proves you are a pathological liar, and a
failure as a logician.

>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

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

The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.

My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about. Of course you
will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
mistakes!

--
Ben.

On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>> points.
>
> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>
> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about. Of course you
> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
> mistakes!
>

I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out, you
are not my target audience.

--
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 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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)
>>>
>>
>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>
>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>> sequence of configurations.
>
> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>
> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>
> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source, that
> you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic argument is
> unsound.

It is self-evidently correct,
that you deny this is because it is over your head.

--
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 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>
>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>
>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>
>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source, that
>> you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic argument
>> is unsound.
>
> It is self-evidently correct,
> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>

'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.

Just shows you don't know the rules of Logic.

FAIL.

On 3/3/22 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>> points.
>>
>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>
>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about.  Of course you
>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
>> mistakes!
>>
>
> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out, you
> are not my target audience.
>

No, you haven't. YOu hav just proved that you are a pathological liar
that doesn't understand anything about the rules of Logic or the meaning
of Truth.

You have doomed yourself to be a laughing-stock.

On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>
>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>
>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>
>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>> argument is unsound.
>>
>> It is self-evidently correct,
>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>
>
> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>

When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
natural language semantics the common English meaning of "self-evident"
becomes {semantic tautology}.

Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is not
sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs model
theory to help with this.

> Just shows you don't know the rules of Logic.
>
> FAIL.

--
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 3/3/2022 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>> points.
>>>
>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>>
>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about.  Of course you
>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
>>> mistakes!
>>>
>>
>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
>> you are not my target audience.
>>
>
> No, you haven't. YOu hav just proved that you are a pathological liar
> that doesn't understand anything about the rules of Logic or the meaning
> of Truth.
>
> You have doomed yourself to be a laughing-stock.

Yes you cannot even correctly paraphrase what I say proving that you
have no idea what I mean.

--
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 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>
>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>
>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>
>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>
>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>
>>
>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>
>
> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
> natural language semantics the common English meaning of "self-evident"
> becomes {semantic tautology}.
>
> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is not
> sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs model
> theory to help with this.
>
>
>> Just shows you don't know the rules of Logic.
>>
>> FAIL.
>
>

On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>
>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>
>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>
>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>
>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>
>>
>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>
>
> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
> natural language semantics the common English meaning of "self-evident"
> becomes {semantic tautology}.
>
> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is not
> sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs model
> theory to help with this.
>

You don't get to change the logic.

FAIL.

>
>> Just shows you don't know the rules of Logic.
>>
>> FAIL.
>
>

On 3/3/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>>> points.
>>>>
>>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about.  Of course you
>>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were
>>>> new
>>>> mistakes!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect
>>> on the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken
>>> out, you are not my target audience.
>>>
>>
>> No, you haven't. YOu hav just proved that you are a pathological liar
>> that doesn't understand anything about the rules of Logic or the
>> meaning of Truth.
>>
>> You have doomed yourself to be a laughing-stock.
>
> Yes you cannot even correctly paraphrase what I say proving that you
> have no idea what I mean.
>
No, you have proved that you are a total ignoramus that doesn't
understand a bit of the logic of the field.

If you think you are so much in the right, why haven't you written and
submitted your paper?

Because you KNOW you will get trashed by their rebuttals.

FAIL.

On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>
>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>
>>
>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
>> natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>
>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is not
>> sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs model
>> theory to help with this.
>>
>
> You don't get to change the logic.
>

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>> points.
>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about. Of course you
>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
>> mistakes!
>
> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
> you are not my target audience.

By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
this simple theorem over 17 years ago. 17 years. How long can on paper
take to finish?

You are never going to get a paper on this topic published (published --
not self-published). Whether you like it or not I am your target
audience, along with anyone else here who will tell you that you are
wrong[2]. That's why you are still replying to me despite having just
said that you won't until I "fully address" whatever the latest junk
idea was.

Every single attempt you have made to undermine this simple theorem has
been wrong. After almost 18 years of misunderstandings, daft ideas,
deluded claims, doubling down and doubling back, there has not been a
single idea that would get past a journal editor's joke pile. This
includes the latest ridiculous misconception which I genuinely thought
you might be able to overcome with a little coaching. But, no, you
don't want to learn anything (though the offer remains open).

With my human hat on, I really wish you would do something else. There
is so much more to enjoy in the world. I know we share a love of dogs.
I am learning to become a dog training instructor, and every week I get
to work with dozens of owners and their amazing dogs. I love it. It's
quite a change of style from academic computer science. Please consider
some other use of your time.

[1] Have you even read Linz's actual halting theorem proof yet? The
proper one?

[2] It's a curios fact that the one things that really annoys a Usenet
crank is being agreed with. You'd think that all the Cantor deniers and
Gödel refuters would get together a push a magnum opus (something they
clearly can't do that on their own), but no. To paraphrase Tolstoy, all
valid propositions are alike, but all crank ideas are wrong in their own
particular way.

--
Ben.

On 3/3/22 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt
>>>>>>> decider must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the
>>>>>>> infinite simulation of this input that this input specifies an
>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
>>> natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>>
>>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is not
>>> sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs model
>>> theory to help with this.
>>>
>>
>> You don't get to change the logic.
>>
>
> Actually, yes I do.
> When logic diverged from Aristotle's syllogism it ceased to be a
> consistent system of correct reasoning.
>

On 3/3/2022 7:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>> points.
>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about. Of course you
>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
>>> mistakes!
>>
>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
>> you are not my target audience.
>
> By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
> this simple theorem over 17 years ago. 17 years. How long can on paper
> take to finish?
>

I have to make my proof so clearly correct that it is fully understood
before it is rejected out-of-hand on the basis of its subject matter.

I still need to learn more about computable functions. None of the
theory of computation textbooks go into the same depth that others here
refer to. I was not sure that a RASP computable function could know its
own machine address until André's explanation.

THIS IS THE KEY ESSENCE OF MY PROOF
Infinitely Recursive input on HP Proofs
comp.theory Mar 11, 2017, 3:13:03 PM peteolcott
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/NcFS02hKs1U/m/PlBF-1LRBAAJ

I actually inadvertently came up with it in this paper:
Self Modifying Turing Machine (SMTM) Solution to the Halting Problem
(concrete example) August 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example

No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I have
said:

Simple English version of Olcott's Halt status criterion measure:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to its
reject state.

Somewhat formalized version of Olcott's Halt status criterion measure:
Let ⟨M⟩ describe a Turing machine M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q₀, □, F), and let w
be any element of Σ⁺, A solution of the halting problem is a Turing
machine H, which for any ⟨M⟩ and w, performs the computation (Linz 1990:317)

H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy ----- iff UTM( ⟨M⟩, w ) reaches the final state of M
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qn ----- iff UTM( ⟨M⟩, w ) would never reach the final
state of M

Simulating halt decider H performs a pure simulation of its input as if
it was a UTM unless and until it detects an infinitely repeating
pattern. Then it aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to
its final reject state. Otherwise H transitions to its accept state when
its simulation ends.

The above is mapped to the conventional notion of non-halting sequences
of configurations in that they never reach their own final state.

> You are never going to get a paper on this topic published (published --
> not self-published). Whether you like it or not I am your target
> audience, along with anyone else here who will tell you that you are
> wrong[2]. That's why you are still replying to me despite having just
> said that you won't until I "fully address" whatever the latest junk
> idea was.
>
> Every single attempt you have made to undermine this simple theorem has
> been wrong. After almost 18 years of misunderstandings, daft ideas,
> deluded claims, doubling down and doubling back, there has not been a
> single idea that would get past a journal editor's joke pile. This
> includes the latest ridiculous misconception which I genuinely thought
> you might be able to overcome with a little coaching. But, no, you
> don't want to learn anything (though the offer remains open).
>
> With my human hat on, I really wish you would do something else. There
> is so much more to enjoy in the world. I know we share a love of dogs.
> I am learning to become a dog training instructor, and every week I get
> to work with dozens of owners and their amazing dogs. I love it. It's
> quite a change of style from academic computer science. Please consider
> some other use of your time.
>
> [1] Have you even read Linz's actual halting theorem proof yet? The
> proper one?
>
> [2] It's a curios fact that the one things that really annoys a Usenet
> crank is being agreed with. You'd think that all the Cantor deniers and
> Gödel refuters would get together a push a magnum opus (something they
> clearly can't do that on their own), but no. To paraphrase Tolstoy, all
> valid propositions are alike, but all crank ideas are wrong in their own
> particular way.
>

--
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 3/3/2022 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt
>>>>>>>> decider must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the
>>>>>>>> infinite simulation of this input that this input specifies an
>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
>>>> natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>>>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>>>
>>>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is
>>>> not sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs
>>>> model theory to help with this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't get to change the logic.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, yes I do.
>> When logic diverged from Aristotle's syllogism it ceased to be a
>> consistent system of correct reasoning.
>>
>
> Nope, Aristotle doesn't control the meaning of logic in Mathemetics (or
> in fact in ANY branch that doesn't accept it).
>

On 3/3/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>> decider must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the
>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation of this input that this input specifies an
>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>>>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable
>>>>>>>> source, that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you
>>>>>>>> WHOLE logic argument is unsound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar
>>>>> of natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>>>>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is
>>>>> not sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs
>>>>> model theory to help with this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to change the logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, yes I do.
>>> When logic diverged from Aristotle's syllogism it ceased to be a
>>> consistent system of correct reasoning.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, Aristotle doesn't control the meaning of logic in Mathemetics
>> (or in fact in ANY branch that doesn't accept it).
>>
>
> Here is the key error of (at least classical and symbolic) logic:
>
> When-so-ever a system of reasoning allows a consequence to be proved to
> logically follow from a set of premises and it is not a necessary
> consequence of these premises then logic diverges from correct reasoning.
>

On 3/3/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the
>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation of this input that this input specifies an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you
>>>>>>>>> can actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable
>>>>>>>>> source, that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you
>>>>>>>>> WHOLE logic argument is unsound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>>>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar
>>>>>> of natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>>>>>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is
>>>>>> not sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs
>>>>>> model theory to help with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get to change the logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, yes I do.
>>>> When logic diverged from Aristotle's syllogism it ceased to be a
>>>> consistent system of correct reasoning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, Aristotle doesn't control the meaning of logic in Mathemetics
>>> (or in fact in ANY branch that doesn't accept it).
>>>
>>
>> Here is the key error of (at least classical and symbolic) logic:
>>
>> When-so-ever a system of reasoning allows a consequence to be proved
>> to logically follow from a set of premises and it is not a necessary
>> consequence of these premises then logic diverges from correct reasoning.
>>
>
> NOPE. TRY TO PROVE IT.
>
>> A necessary consequence of a set of premises only exists when nothing
>> besides truth preserving operations are applied to the premises to
>> derive this consequence from these premises.
>>
>
> NOPE. TRY TO PROVE IT.
>
>
> You have refuese to study the history of logic, and thus have doomed
> yourself to repeat the errors that were made a Century ago.
>

On 3/3/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 7:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>>> points.
>>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about.  Of course you
>>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were
>>>> new
>>>> mistakes!
>>>
>>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
>>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
>>> you are not my target audience.
>>
>> By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
>> this simple theorem over 17 years ago.  17 years.  How long can on paper
>> take to finish?
>>
>
> I have to make my proof so clearly correct that it is fully understood
> before it is rejected out-of-hand on the basis of its subject matter.
>
> I still need to learn more about computable functions. None of the
> theory of computation textbooks go into the same depth that others here
> refer to. I was not sure that a RASP computable function could know its
> own machine address until André's explanation.

So you ADMIT you don't know the basic meaning of things in the Theory,
but you have made claims based on things that you claim are obvious by
'The meaning of the words' that include these terms.

>
> THIS IS THE KEY ESSENCE OF MY PROOF
> Infinitely Recursive input on HP Proofs
> comp.theory  Mar 11, 2017, 3:13:03 PM  peteolcott
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/NcFS02hKs1U/m/PlBF-1LRBAAJ

>
> I actually inadvertently came up with it in this paper:
> Self Modifying Turing Machine (SMTM) Solution to the Halting Problem
> (concrete example)  August 2016

Which shows you don't understand how Turing Machines work. Turing
Machine have no way to 'access' there code to make the changes.

Also, they don't NEED to change there code, they just need a 'state-bit'
to decide on each of the options they might be able to reprogram
themselves with.

Your description (from what I remember) actually needed an 'external
agent' to actually make the sort of changes you wanted to do, and thus,
you actually need to fold that external agent into the Turing Machine to
make it back into an actual computation, and then it fails to have that
'magical' property of not being able to be 'outwitted' by a machine
using it.

FAIL.

>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example
>
>
> No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I have
> said:
>
> Simple English version of Olcott's Halt status criterion measure:
> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to its
> reject state.

Which is the WRONG definition.

>
> Somewhat formalized version of Olcott's Halt status criterion measure:
> Let ⟨M⟩ describe a Turing machine M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q₀, □, F), and let w
> be any element of Σ⁺, A solution of the halting problem is a Turing
> machine H, which for any ⟨M⟩ and w, performs the computation (Linz
> 1990:317)
>
> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy ----- iff UTM( ⟨M⟩, w ) reaches the final state of M
> H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qn ----- iff UTM( ⟨M⟩, w ) would never reach the final
> state of M

And UTM(<H^> <H^>) will halt if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn, (since the H^ that
contains that H will also go to H^.Qn and Halt) and UTM(<H^> <H^>) by
definition does what H^ applied to <H^> does.
>
> Simulating halt decider H performs a pure simulation of its input as if
> it was a UTM unless and until it detects an infinitely repeating
> pattern. Then it aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to
> its final reject state. Otherwise H transitions to its accept state when
> its simulation ends.

And once it aborts its simulation, it NEVER WAS a UTM. PERIOD, and thus
the UTM simulation of the input acts as above.

The key problem is that there does not exist a valid finite 'infinitely
repeating pattern' in the simulation of <H^> applied to <H^> that can be
in H for it to use. Any pattern that occurs and is in H is shown to be
incorrect as H^ has been shown to halt later in its UTM simulation.

>
> The above is mapped to the conventional notion of non-halting sequences
> of configurations in that they never reach their own final state.

WRONG.

>
>> You are never going to get a paper on this topic published (published --
>> not self-published).  Whether you like it or not I am your target
>> audience, along with anyone else here who will tell you that you are
>> wrong[2].  That's why you are still replying to me despite having just
>> said that you won't until I "fully address" whatever the latest junk
>> idea was.
>>
>> Every single attempt you have made to undermine this simple theorem has
>> been wrong.  After almost 18 years of misunderstandings, daft ideas,
>> deluded claims, doubling down and doubling back, there has not been a
>> single idea that would get past a journal editor's joke pile.  This
>> includes the latest ridiculous misconception which I genuinely thought
>> you might be able to overcome with a little coaching.  But, no, you
>> don't want to learn anything (though the offer remains open).
>>
>> With my human hat on, I really wish you would do something else.  There
>> is so much more to enjoy in the world.  I know we share a love of dogs.
>> I am learning to become a dog training instructor, and every week I get
>> to work with dozens of owners and their amazing dogs.  I love it.  It's
>> quite a change of style from academic computer science.  Please consider
>> some other use of your time.
>>
>> [1] Have you even read Linz's actual halting theorem proof yet?  The
>> proper one?
>>
>> [2] It's a curios fact that the one things that really annoys a Usenet
>> crank is being agreed with.  You'd think that all the Cantor deniers and
>> Gödel refuters would get together a push a magnum opus (something they
>> clearly can't do that on their own), but no.  To paraphrase Tolstoy, all
>> valid propositions are alike, but all crank ideas are wrong in their own
>> particular way.
>>
>
>