On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

>
> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a categorical
> error. What I pointed out is categorically true.

If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.

I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.

On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>
>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a categorical
>> error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>
> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>
> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>

I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.

--
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 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
>

I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and still
be construed as a computation in computer science.

I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.

>>
>> 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.
>

I pointed to this paper as the origin of the key element of my current
proof.

> 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.
>

It is an unconventional new definition that maps to the original
definition thus is provably equivalent.

--
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 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a categorical
>>> error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>
>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>
>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>
>
> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>

But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.

Thus that statement is a LIE, which seems to be your natural langugage.

When in a technical field, you must use the TECHNICAL meaning of the
words, or you are likely incorrect.

On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and still
> be construed as a computation in computer science.

The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't have
'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to design a RASP
machine that takes as an input the description of another arbitrary
computation. (This is the same problem you 'H' program has).

>
> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>

Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.

>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I pointed to this paper as the origin of the key element of my current
> proof.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> It is an unconventional new definition that maps to the original
> definition thus is provably equivalent.
>

Nope, not equivalent. If it WAS equivelent it would give the same answer
for H^ applied to <H^>, which it doesn't.

Shows you don't even know the meaning of 'Equivalent'

On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a categorical
>>>> error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>
>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>
>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>
>>
>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>>
>
> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
> admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.

I will make my terms purely generic:

When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
language.

The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.

>
> Thus that statement is a LIE, which seems to be your natural langugage.
>
> When in a technical field, you must use the TECHNICAL meaning of the
> words, or you are likely incorrect.

--
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 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and still
>> be construed as a computation in computer science.
>
>
> The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't have
> 'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to design a RASP
> machine that takes as an input the description of another arbitrary
> computation. (This is the same problem you 'H' program has).
>
>>
>> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
>> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>>
>
> Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.
>

I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do not
understand that halt deciders are deciders.

>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I pointed to this paper as the origin of the key element of my current
>> proof.
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> It is an unconventional new definition that maps to the original
>> definition thus is provably equivalent.
>>
>
> Nope, not equivalent. If it WAS equivelent it would give the same answer
> for H^ applied to <H^>, which it doesn't.
>
> Shows you don't even know the meaning of 'Equivalent'

They both define the same set of non-halting elements.

--
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 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and
>>> still be construed as a computation in computer science.
>>
>>
>> The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't have
>> 'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to design a
>> RASP machine that takes as an input the description of another
>> arbitrary computation. (This is the same problem you 'H' program has).
>>
>>>
>>> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
>>> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>>>
>>
>> Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.
>>
>
> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do not
> understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>

I have never said anything against H being a decider, just that the
function it computes is not the halting function.

You keep on quoting some made up rule that somehow the behavior of H^
applied to <H^> can't be the basis of the correct answer for H applied
to <H^> <H^> since it isn't what the 'input' is.

By that logic 2 + 3 doesn't need to be 5, since 5 isn't an input to the
add operatior.

The DEFINITION of the answer of the Halting Mapping is that the decider
H applied to <M> w is based on the behavior of M applied to w.

Thus the answer for H applied to <H^> <H^> must be based on the behavior
of H^ applied to <H^>, but you refuse that, with no grounds except the
tantrum of a 2 year old.

FAIL

>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I pointed to this paper as the origin of the key element of my
>>> current proof.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is an unconventional new definition that maps to the original
>>> definition thus is provably equivalent.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, not equivalent. If it WAS equivelent it would give the same
>> answer for H^ applied to <H^>, which it doesn't.
>>
>> Shows you don't even know the meaning of 'Equivalent'
>
> They both define the same set of non-halting elements.
>

No they don't

You show that if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn then by YOUR rules <H^> <H^>
represents a non-halting computation.

By the ACTUAL definition, <H^> <H^> behavior is decided by UTM <H^> <H^>
which is the same as H^ applied to <H^> and that machine goes to H^.Qn
and Halts if the embedded copy of H inside it goes to H.Qn, and thus is
Halting. Since By definition, ALL copies of a given computation when
given the same input, behave the same, this holds.

Halting is NOT non-Halting, so the two set are distinct in at least the
placement of the input <H^> <H^>

FAIL.

On 3/3/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a
>>>>> categorical error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>>
>>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>>
>>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>>>
>>
>> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
>> admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.
>
>
> I will make my terms purely generic:
>
> When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
> necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
> apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
> expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
> language.
>
> The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.

Right, to PROVE something, you need to use VALID logic on PROVEN premises.

This does NOT mean that something can't be true even if it is not provable.

Truth and Provable are different concepts.

Remember, not all Truths in Mathematics are Analytic Truths, so not all
Truths are Provable.

Note, this rule also requires that you use the CORRECT meaning of the
words, espcially if they are 'technical' words.

Thus things like 'Halting', have PRECISE meanings and you must use that
meaning. For instance, this means that H aborting its simulation of its
input <H^> <H^> before it reached a final state doesn't mean that the
input can't represent a Halting computation, since THE DEFINITION of
Halting for that input is defined by the simulation of a REAL UTM. (and
not your H that just played one on TV until it aborted its simulation).
>
>
>>
>> Thus that statement is a LIE, which seems to be your natural langugage.
>>
>> When in a technical field, you must use the TECHNICAL meaning of the
>> words, or you are likely incorrect.
>
>

On 3/3/2022 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and
>>>> still be construed as a computation in computer science.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't
>>> have 'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to design
>>> a RASP machine that takes as an input the description of another
>>> arbitrary computation. (This is the same problem you 'H' program has).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
>>>> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.
>>>
>>
>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>>
>
> I have never said anything against H being a decider, just that the
> function it computes is not the halting function.
>
> You keep on quoting some made up rule that somehow the behavior of H^
> applied to <H^> can't be the basis of the correct answer for H applied
> to <H^> <H^> since it isn't what the 'input' is.
>

It is not any made up rule. You just proved that you have woefully
insufficient understanding of deciders.

When they compute the mapping from their input finite strings to an
accept or reject state IT HAS TO BE THE ACTUAL FREAKING INPUT.

--
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 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a
>>>>>> categorical error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
>>> admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.
>>
>>
>> I will make my terms purely generic:
>>
>> When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
>> necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
>> apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
>> expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
>> language.
>>
>> The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.
>
> Right, to PROVE something, you need to use VALID logic on PROVEN premises.
>

When the concept of logically valid diverges from my specification it
diverges from correct reasoning.

> This does NOT mean that something can't be true even if it is not provable.
>
> Truth and Provable are different concepts.
>
> Remember, not all Truths in Mathematics are Analytic Truths, so not all
> Truths are Provable.
>

There are only two kinds of truth:
(1) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language
(2) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language and
sensory stimulus.

Thus provable only verifies two types of things:
(1) The relation between expressions of language exists.
"A dog is an animal." is true

(2) The relation between expressions of language and sensory stimulus
exists. "I am not hearing a dog bark right now." is true

--
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 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a
>>>>>> categorical error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
>>> admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.
>>
>>
>> I will make my terms purely generic:
>>
>> When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
>> necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
>> apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
>> expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
>> language.
>>
>> The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.
>
> Right, to PROVE something, you need to use VALID logic on PROVEN premises.
>
> This does NOT mean that something can't be true even if it is not provable.
>
> Truth and Provable are different concepts.
>
> Remember, not all Truths in Mathematics are Analytic Truths, so not all
> Truths are Provable.
All truths in mathematics are entirely based on relations between
expressions of language.

There are only two kinds of truth:
(1) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language
(2) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language and
sensory stimulus.

Thus provable only verifies two types of things:
(1) The relation between expressions of language exists.
"A dog is an animal." is true

(2) The relation between expressions of language and sensory stimulus
exists. "I am not hearing a dog bark right now." is true
--
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 2022-03-03 14:58:15 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

The definition 12.1 does not say so.

Mikko

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> writes:

> On 2022-03-03 14:58:15 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> 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.
>
> The definition 12.1 does not say so.

So what? Linz does not use the word decider at all, but that does mean
it's wrong for someone else to. A TM that either accepts or rejects
every input is a decider for some language -- specifically the decidable
language that the TM accepts. It's a natural way refer to a class of
TMs and should not cause any confusion.

--
Ben.

On 3/3/22 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a
>>>>>>> categorical error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of
>>>>> correctness.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have
>>>> just admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will make my terms purely generic:
>>>
>>> When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
>>> necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
>>> apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
>>> expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
>>> language.
>>>
>>> The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.
>>
>> Right, to PROVE something, you need to use VALID logic on PROVEN
>> premises.
>>
>
> When the concept of logically valid diverges from my specification it
> diverges from correct reasoning.

Who made YOU God? YOUR specificaion means nothing. The AGREED on
specification is what matters. Your statement has expelled you from the
ability to make ANY claims about what actually IS in the system.

FAIL.

>
>> This does NOT mean that something can't be true even if it is not
>> provable.
>>
>> Truth and Provable are different concepts.
>>
>> Remember, not all Truths in Mathematics are Analytic Truths, so not
>> all Truths are Provable.
>>
>
> There are only two kinds of truth:
> (1) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language
> (2) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language and
> sensory stimulus.

So, atoms don't exist since we can not directly sense them?

FAIL.

There is Truth of what IS, whether or not it is able to be directly
sensed. Empirical Truth relates to things that actually exist is a world.

Mathematics admits into its logic a form of Empirical Truth that if
something can happen by the application of the laws of mathematics, it
is. This takes it beyond the confines of a pure Analytical System. The
realization that this has actually happened came to the fore a Century
ago, and it seems that you, because you haven't learned from History,
are just repeating the discovery processes, and making the same MISTAKES
of rejecting that which is actually provable because it doesn't match
your INCORRECT ideas.

>
> Thus provable only verifies two types of things:
> (1) The relation between expressions of language exists.
> "A dog is an animal." is true
>
> (2) The relation between expressions of language and sensory stimulus
> exists.  "I am not hearing a dog bark right now." is true
>
>

And you just revealed your error. There is a difference between
'Provable' and 'True'.

Many things are True but not Provable, and Mathematics doesn't JUST deal
with the provable. It tries to prove what it can, but it understands
that there can be statements that are emperically true within it, that
it can not prove.

On 3/3/22 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and
>>>>> still be construed as a computation in computer science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't
>>>> have 'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to
>>>> design a RASP machine that takes as an input the description of
>>>> another arbitrary computation. (This is the same problem you 'H'
>>>> program has).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
>>>>> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>>>
>>
>> I have never said anything against H being a decider, just that the
>> function it computes is not the halting function.
>>
>> You keep on quoting some made up rule that somehow the behavior of H^
>> applied to <H^> can't be the basis of the correct answer for H applied
>> to <H^> <H^> since it isn't what the 'input' is.
>>
>
> It is not any made up rule. You just proved that you have woefully
> insufficient understanding of deciders.
>
> When they compute the mapping from their input finite strings to an
> accept or reject state IT HAS TO BE THE ACTUAL FREAKING INPUT.
>

And are you saying that <H^> <H^> isn't an actual input?

The problem actual is that THE MAP that H needs to try to compute is
beyond its ability. The MAP is the mapping of <M> w to does M w Halt or
Not. Thus for the input <H^> <H^> the behavior of H^ <H^> is EXACTLY
what H is responsible for.

The fact that H CAN'T compute that results doesn't make the problem
wrong, it means that the problem isn't computable.

You don't seem to understand the concept of actual REQUIREMENTS, and the
fact that some things are just not possible.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> 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.

Your recent work will be rejected out of hand if you are clear, because
it will be clear that you are not talking about the halting problem. If
you find a way of describing it that is so convoluted that it's not
immediately clear, it will be rejected because it's too vague.

It's possible that, as below, you accidentally do end up talking about
the halting problem. Then your work will be rejected because that
question is settled. In this case, to get out of the editor's joke
pile, you would have to show a flaw in every proof, and you have not
even read Linz's proof (the real one, not the one presented, rather
sloppily in my opinion, for historical interest) let along all the
others.

Attacking proofs raises an even bigger problem for you: you don't know
what a proof is. You still think that if {A} ⊦ X, then {A,~A} ⊬ X so
there is really nothing you can do in terms of the existing proofs that
won't be "joke pile" ready from the get-go.

> 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.

Have you actually read a book on this topic? There's no sign that you
have. You didn't even know what a function was a few months ago.

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

At least three people have done exactly that. Many times. And quite a
few more than three over the 17 years you've been trying to say
something original on this topic. What you mean is that you ignore or
don't understand the errors being pointed out to you.

> 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.

Let me point out the error yet again: this is not the halting problem.

> 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)

Writing "Linz 1990:317" make it look like you are quoting Linz, but this
is not a direct quote.

> 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

"UTM(⟨M⟩, w) reaches the final state of M" if, and only if, "M halts on
input w" so your conditions are correct, and the same as Linz's.

This is the halting problem, pointlessly reworded in terms of a UTM so
you should be able to write out the rest of the proof using the

Of course, your rewording is technically wrong because you don't do
details, but unless you want to be taken 100% literally at your word, I
don't think they stop you being understood.

But you don't want to be understood to be talking about Linz's simple
conditions -- you want to talk about the problem with the "revised
criteria" that is not the HP. That puts you in a bind. Talk about the
HP and you have to find flaws in proofs you can't understand. Talk
about your other problem, and no one will care.

--
Ben.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.

Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
not on. It's despicable and you should stop doing it.

[1] To pick a couple out of many:

"I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
Ĥ.qx ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide
the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."

"I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
Ĥ) input pair. I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
should not take very long. The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
fully encoded as actual Turing machines."

--
Ben.

On 3/4/2022 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-03-03 14:58:15 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> 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.
>
> The definition 12.1 does not say so.
>
> Mikko
>

It does not have to say this for this to be true.

The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning. In fact, it is
lamentable that Sipser chose the terms decider and recognizer, since
they seem to confuse students.

Intuitively, a decider should be a Turing machine that given an input,
halts and either accepts or rejects, relaying its answer in one of many
equivalent ways, such as halting at an ACCEPT or REJECT state, or
leaving its answer on the output tape.
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/84433/what-is-decider

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision
problem is a problem that can be posed as a yes–no question of the input
values. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be
impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct
yes-or-no answer. The halting problem is an example: it can be proven
that there is no algorithm that correctly determines whether arbitrary
programs eventually halt when run.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

--
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 3/4/2022 9:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Your recent work will be rejected out of hand if you are clear, because
> it will be clear that you are not talking about the halting problem. If
> you find a way of describing it that is so convoluted that it's not
> immediately clear, it will be rejected because it's too vague.
>
> It's possible that, as below, you accidentally do end up talking about
> the halting problem. Then your work will be rejected because that
> question is settled. In this case, to get out of the editor's joke
> pile, you would have to show a flaw in every proof, and you have not
> even read Linz's proof (the real one, not the one presented, rather
> sloppily in my opinion, for historical interest) let along all the
> others.
>
> Attacking proofs raises an even bigger problem for you: you don't know
> what a proof is. You still think that if {A} ⊦ X, then {A,~A} ⊬ X so
> there is really nothing you can do in terms of the existing proofs that
> won't be "joke pile" ready from the get-go.
>
>> 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.
>
> Have you actually read a book on this topic? There's no sign that you
> have. You didn't even know what a function was a few months ago.
>
>> No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I
>> have said:
>
> At least three people have done exactly that. Many times. And quite a
> few more than three over the 17 years you've been trying to say
> something original on this topic. What you mean is that you ignore or
> don't understand the errors being pointed out to you.
>
>> 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.
>
> Let me point out the error yet again: this is not the halting problem.
>
>> 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)
>
> Writing "Linz 1990:317" make it look like you are quoting Linz, but this
> is not a direct quote.
>
>> 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
>
> "UTM(⟨M⟩, w) reaches the final state of M" if, and only if, "M halts on
> input w" so your conditions are correct, and the same as Linz's.
>
> This is the halting problem, pointlessly reworded in terms of a UTM so
> you should be able to write out the rest of the proof using the
>
> Of course, your rewording is technically wrong because you don't do
> details, but unless you want to be taken 100% literally at your word, I
> don't think they stop you being understood.
>
> But you don't want to be understood to be talking about Linz's simple
> conditions -- you want to talk about the problem with the "revised
> criteria" that is not the HP. That puts you in a bind. Talk about the
> HP and you have to find flaws in proofs you can't understand. Talk
> about your other problem, and no one will care.
>

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Thus a halt decider would compute the mapping from its input finite
strings to an accept or reject state on the basis of whether or not the
finite string pair specifies a computation that halts.

All sequences of configurations that never reach their final state are
not computations that halt.

When a sequence of configurations would never reach their final state in
any finite number of steps of pure simulation then this sequence of
configurations specify non-halting behavior.

The criterion measure shown below defines the set of configurations that
never reach their final state.

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.

--
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 3/4/22 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-03-03 14:58:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The definition 12.1 does not say so.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> It does not have to say this for this to be true.
>
>
> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning. In fact, it is
> lamentable that Sipser chose the terms decider and recognizer, since
> they seem to confuse students.

But it DOES, at least in Computation Theory, which is what we are
talking about.

A Decider is a Machine tha ALWAYS halts with an answer.

Some restrict its answer to accept/reject, but that limitiation isn't
universal. The KEY feature is that the decider will ALWAYS give an answer.

This distincts it from a recognizer which only needs to give the
'accept' answer in finite time, and is allowed to not give any answer
for something that could be rejected.

One key thing is that many problems are much easier to build a
recognizer for rather than a decider. For instance, a Halting Machine
Recoginzer could be just a simple UTM which simulates the machine and
accepts it when the simulation finishes.

(Note, after you say it doesn't have a standard answer, you then quote
several sources that use the same basic definition).

>
> Intuitively, a decider should be a Turing machine that given an input,
> halts and either accepts or rejects, relaying its answer in one of many
> equivalent ways, such as halting at an ACCEPT or REJECT state, or
> leaving its answer on the output tape.
> https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/84433/what-is-decider
>
> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision
> problem is a problem that can be posed as a yes–no question of the input
> values.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>
> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
> undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be
> impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct
> yes-or-no answer. The halting problem is an example: it can be proven
> that there is no algorithm that correctly determines whether arbitrary
> programs eventually halt when run.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>

On 3/4/2022 9:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>
> Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
> not on. It's despicable and you should stop doing it.
>

When you would actually directly address the point at hand you have no
rebuttal because it is correct.

Thus you must always dodge the point at hand so that it superficially
looks like you have provided a rebuttal to gullible fools that aren't
hardly paying any attention.

THIS IS THE POINT AT HAND
It is the case that all deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
input finite strings to an accept or reject state thus everything that
is not an input finite sting is out-of-scope for the decider.

This shows that embedded_H must compute the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an
accept or reject state and is not allowed to report on the behavior of
the computation that contains itself Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

> [1] To pick a couple out of many:
>
> "I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
> Ĥ.qx ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide
> the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."
>
> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
> Ĥ) input pair. I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
> should not take very long. The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
> fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>

--
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 3/4/22 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 9:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Your recent work will be rejected out of hand if you are clear, because
>> it will be clear that you are not talking about the halting problem.  If
>> you find a way of describing it that is so convoluted that it's not
>> immediately clear, it will be rejected because it's too vague.
>>
>> It's possible that, as below, you accidentally do end up talking about
>> the halting problem.  Then your work will be rejected because that
>> question is settled.  In this case, to get out of the editor's joke
>> pile, you would have to show a flaw in every proof, and you have not
>> even read Linz's proof (the real one, not the one presented, rather
>> sloppily in my opinion, for historical interest) let along all the
>> others.
>>
>> Attacking proofs raises an even bigger problem for you: you don't know
>> what a proof is.  You still think that if {A} ⊦ X, then {A,~A} ⊬ X so
>> there is really nothing you can do in terms of the existing proofs that
>> won't be "joke pile" ready from the get-go.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Have you actually read a book on this topic?  There's no sign that you
>> have.  You didn't even know what a function was a few months ago.
>>
>>> No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I
>>> have said:
>>
>> At least three people have done exactly that.  Many times.  And quite a
>> few more than three over the 17 years you've been trying to say
>> something original on this topic.  What you mean is that you ignore or
>> don't understand the errors being pointed out to you.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Let me point out the error yet again: this is not the halting problem.
>>
>>> 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)
>>
>> Writing "Linz 1990:317" make it look like you are quoting Linz, but this
>> is not a direct quote.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> "UTM(⟨M⟩, w) reaches the final state of M" if, and only if, "M halts on
>> input w" so your conditions are correct, and the same as Linz's.
>>
>> This is the halting problem, pointlessly reworded in terms of a UTM so
>> you should be able to write out the rest of the proof using the
>>
>> Of course, your rewording is technically wrong because you don't do
>> details, but unless you want to be taken 100% literally at your word, I
>> don't think they stop you being understood.
>>
>> But you don't want to be understood to be talking about Linz's simple
>> conditions -- you want to talk about the problem with the "revised
>> criteria" that is not the HP.  That puts you in a bind.  Talk about the
>> HP and you have to find flaws in proofs you can't understand.  Talk
>> about your other problem, and no one will care.
>>
>
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
> input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
> forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> Thus a halt decider would compute the mapping from its input finite
> strings to an accept or reject state on the basis of whether or not the
> finite string pair specifies a computation that halts.
>
> All sequences of configurations that never reach their final state are
> not computations that halt.

Right, and that means that UTM <M> w doesn't halt.
>
> When a sequence of configurations would never reach their final state in
> any finite number of steps of pure simulation then this sequence of
> configurations specify non-halting behavior.
>
> The criterion measure shown below defines the set of configurations that
> never reach their final state.
>
> 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.
>

Except that your definition doesn't actually specify an actual Turing
Machine, because you have two DIFFERENT H's in view. If H would never
about its simulation, then it would never abort its simulation, and we
have shown that it doesn't answer.

If H DOES abort its simulation, then it looking at H^ thinking it is
built with the other H is incorrct.

The Ha that does abort, NEVER was in a situation where it wouldn't have
halted, because it always was going to abort it simulation at that
point. We can thus show that H^ never was an infinite sequcence of patterns.

Fundamentally, you just don't understand what an algorithm is, as H
doesn't have an actual defined definite algorithm. THis is where you fail.

Once you 'code' H to have any definite algorithm to try to implement you
meta-algorithm, you will find that it either never aborts and fails to
give an answer, and thus is not a decider, or it give the wrong answer.

The problem is your meta-algorithm presumes the existance of a halt
decider to tell it that it will never halt to tell it to abort.

As has been proven, there is no finite pattern in H^ <H^> that H can
detect to be correct.

FAIL.

On 3/4/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 9:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>>
>> Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
>> not on.  It's despicable and you should stop doing it.
>>
>
> When you would actually directly address the point at hand you have no
> rebuttal because it is correct.
>
> Thus you must always dodge the point at hand so that it superficially
> looks like you have provided a rebuttal to gullible fools that aren't
> hardly paying any attention.
>
> THIS IS THE POINT AT HAND
> It is the case that all deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
> input finite strings to an accept or reject state thus everything that
> is not an input finite sting is out-of-scope for the decider.
>
> This shows that embedded_H must compute the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an
> accept or reject state and is not allowed to report on the behavior of
> the computation that contains itself Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Excpept that statement just PROVES that you are not working on the
Halting Problem as the mapping that a Halt Decider is supposed to
compute is EXACTLY that, the mapping of <M> w to the behavior of M w.

Since you say your embedded_H is NOT ALLOWED to report on the behavior
of M w (just because it constains a copy of H in it) then you have just
DEFINED that your H is not a Halt Decider, as it is NOT ALLOWED to
compute the Halting Funciton Mapping.

There is nothing about the need to compute a mapping that says that
mapping is not allowed to be based on ANYTHING at all. (Just that it
might not be ABLE to compute on some things, which is a different question).

FAIL.

>
>
>> [1] To pick a couple out of many:
>>
>>    "I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
>>    Ĥ.qx ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide
>>    the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."
>>
>>    "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
>>    Ĥ) input pair.  I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
>>    should not take very long.  The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
>>    fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>>
>
>

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 3/4/2022 9:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>> Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
>> not on. It's despicable and you should stop doing it.
>
> When you would actually directly address the point at hand you have no
> rebuttal because it is correct.

What are you waffling about now? Of course a halt decider (were such a
thing to exist) would be a decider. Your lie is that neither I nor
Richard have ever said what claim. Continuing to lie about what people
claim is despicable. You've done it before. You will probably keep
doing it.

> THIS IS THE POINT AT HAND

By which you mean this the current distraction from 17 years of
uncorrected mistakes.

> It is the case that all deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
> input finite strings to an accept or reject state thus everything that
> is not an input finite sting is out-of-scope for the decider.

Apart form the bad wording, no one has ever objected to that.

> This shows that embedded_H must compute the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an
> accept or reject state and is not allowed to report on the behavior of
> the computation that contains itself Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Nonsense. First off, this is a silly use of language -- a TM is not
"allowed" or "not allowed" to do anything. A TM+input entails a
sequence of configurations determined solely by the state transition
function and the input. They have do not need permission for anything,
and permission can not be withdrawn about anything.

embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entail the same sequence of
configurations up to qn or qy. If embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* qy ⊦ oo then
H accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. If embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* qn then H rejects ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

You have equivocated on what actually happens:

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

and

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

Maybe now would be a good time to get off the fence. Both are wrong,
but I'd rather comment on the specific way you are wrong, and that's not
possible with this industrial-level equivocation going on.

Linz's H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is /defined/ to report on the behaviour of H
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ in that it must accept the input <M> w if M halts on
input w and it must reject the input otherwise. embedded_H (linz's
embedded_H, not your silly one) does what H does. You can say it is
reporting on anything you like. You can say it is not allowed to.
Neither makes any difference. It does what H would do, were H to exist
at all.

No one cares about your H, so you have to make it clear if you are (a)
misunderstand the halting problem or (b) talking about your H that is
not defined line Linz's. You claimed that when you write H you were
always talking about Linz's H, but you broke that promise long ago.

--
Ben.