Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

win-nt from the people who invented edlin. -- MaDsen Wikholm, mwikholm@at8.abo.fi


devel / comp.theory / Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

SubjectAuthor
* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofsolcott
+* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemMr Flibble
|`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
| +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
| +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Mr Flibble
| |`- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
| `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemMr Flibble
|  `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Mr Flibble
|   |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   | +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemMr Flibble
|   | |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   | | +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemMr Flibble
|   | | +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|   | | |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   | | | +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|   | | | |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   | | | | +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|   | | | | |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   | | | | | +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
|   | | | | | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|   | | | | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
|   | | | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
|   | | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
|   | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
|   `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
+- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
+* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
| +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
| `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|  `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|   +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
|   `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|    `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|     +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemMr Flibble
|     |`- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemolcott
|     +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Ben
|     |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Ben
|     | |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | | `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Ben
|     | |  `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   | +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Dennis Bush
|     | |   | |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   | | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Mr Flibble
|     | |   | +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]wij
|     | |   | `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |  `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   |   `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |    `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   |     `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |      `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   |       `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |        `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   |         `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |          `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   |           +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |           `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]André G. Isaak
|     | |   |            +- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |   |            `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |   `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Ben
|     | |    `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |     +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |     |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |     | `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Richard Damon
|     | |     +* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Ben
|     | |     |`* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |     | `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Ben
|     | |     |  `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |     |   `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Ben
|     | |     `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Mikko
|     | |      `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |       `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Mikko
|     | |        `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     | |         `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Mikko
|     | `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Mikko
|     |  `* Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]olcott
|     |   `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]Mikko
|     `- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemRichard Damon
+- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2)Mikko
`- Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problemwij

Pages:1234
Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32349&group=comp.theory#32349

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:22:09 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:22:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-D7FPHeoE1F6N8nUI3F6Ik2mGggRYYKyW2cbt/CpXSfzi1R9Sia+tkKtDwSnicY6aDmMtVND2f06oeN/!1S3TELwncIP7Zz3sKsxJd8rgzZ3skbBeVRg/M0pKHhv+cl8s74Jgtio4dXmqrqoIkv/9NCuybhk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3528
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 20:22 UTC

On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>
>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>
>>
>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>> input actually specifies.
>>
>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet
>> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>
>
> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual
> behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the
> behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>
The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<82faef95-8d60-45f8-a3fa-2d1a8ea3d877n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32352&group=comp.theory#32352

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7dc1:0:b0:2f3:c70a:df9e with SMTP id c1-20020ac87dc1000000b002f3c70adf9emr6183161qte.307.1652473614865;
Fri, 13 May 2022 13:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:ff06:0:b0:2e6:d7bc:c812 with SMTP id
k6-20020a81ff06000000b002e6d7bcc812mr7824533ywn.122.1652473611618; Fri, 13
May 2022 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad> <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <82faef95-8d60-45f8-a3fa-2d1a8ea3d877n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:26:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4058
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 13 May 2022 20:26 UTC

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:22:17 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
> >>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
> >>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
> >>>>> what's your opinion?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
> >>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
> >>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
> >>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
> >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
> >> input actually specifies.
> >>
> >> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet
> >> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
> >> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
> >>
> >
> > Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual
> > behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the
> > behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
> >
> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.

And your H doesn't perform a correct simulation as has been described many times. If the answer H gives doesn't match the defined mapping:

H applied to <H^> <H^> reports halting if and only if H^ applied to <H^> halts, and
H applied to <H^> <H^> reports non-halting if and only if H^ applied to <H^> does not halt

Which it doesn't, then it is by definition wrong.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<7039fc40-6796-4c09-a7aa-e65e6d88a826n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32353&group=comp.theory#32353

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bcc:0:b0:45b:115d:b9e5 with SMTP id t12-20020ad45bcc000000b0045b115db9e5mr6007776qvt.77.1652473645091;
Fri, 13 May 2022 13:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e4c4:0:b0:2fb:9149:1dea with SMTP id
n187-20020a0de4c4000000b002fb91491deamr7884617ywe.99.1652473644921; Fri, 13
May 2022 13:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 13:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=124.218.76.41; posting-account=A1PyIwoAAACCahK0CVYFlDZG8JWzz_Go
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.218.76.41
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad> <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7039fc40-6796-4c09-a7aa-e65e6d88a826n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
From: wynii...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:27:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3893
 by: wij - Fri, 13 May 2022 20:27 UTC

On Saturday, 14 May 2022 at 04:22:17 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
> >>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
> >>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
> >>>>> what's your opinion?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
> >>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
> >>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
> >>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
> >> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
> >> input actually specifies.
> >>
> >> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet
> >> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
> >> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
> >>
> >
> > Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual
> > behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the
> > behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
> >
> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer

Where is the actual POOH? We only hear you lie all day long.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<qMWdnR4-Q9NdXOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32356&group=comp.theory#32356

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:38:24 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:38:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<82faef95-8d60-45f8-a3fa-2d1a8ea3d877n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <82faef95-8d60-45f8-a3fa-2d1a8ea3d877n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qMWdnR4-Q9NdXOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 151
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zaT/gMBqyC/B02GbLNLjM4XmtvyugsMgqx6DLy1KBtA/7lxp5U32JoQu70tW/wan4xwz60K5DG18WLe!b/jZA1HcXQyTvYjBoOlFFMcjkmEolQZMQdo25En2SNb6ARSCnavzUe2EbCofnH4TG7DHiRVy7y0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8402
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 20:38 UTC

On 5/13/2022 3:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:22:17 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>
>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet
>>>> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
>>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual
>>> behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the
>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>
>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
>> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
>> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>
> And your H doesn't perform a correct simulation as has been described many times.

That the execution trace provided by H(P,P) exactly matches the behavior
that the x86 source-code of P specifies conclusively proves that the
simulation of the input to H(P,P) is correct.

How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?
How much longer are you going to deny this empirically proven fact?

#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]

_main()
[00001372](01) 55 push ebp
[00001373](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001375](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137a](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137f](05) e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001384](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001387](01) 50 push eax
[00001388](05) 6823040000 push 00000423 // "Input_Halts = "
[0000138d](05) e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
[00001392](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001395](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00001397](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001398](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0039) [00001398]

machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
....[00001372][0010229e][00000000] 55 push ebp
....[00001373][0010229e][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001375][0010229a][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
....[0000137a][00102296][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
....[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
....[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
....[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
....[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
....[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
....[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

....[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
....[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50 push eax
....[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
"Input_Halts = "
---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
Input_Halts = 0
....[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
....[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
....[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d pop ebp
....[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3 ret
Number_of_User_Instructions(1)
Number of Instructions Executed(15892)

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<20220513214407.00005983@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32358&group=comp.theory#32358

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Message-ID: <20220513214407.00005983@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<82faef95-8d60-45f8-a3fa-2d1a8ea3d877n@googlegroups.com>
<qMWdnR4-Q9NdXOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 15
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:44:06 UTC
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 21:44:07 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1983
 by: Mr Flibble - Fri, 13 May 2022 20:44 UTC

On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:38:23 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting
> behavior pattern.

An infinite recursion that only exists in your simulation and not in
the proofs you are attempting to refute. Your simulation is based on a
category error and is thus invalid.

Give it up and do something useful with the rest of your life.

/Flibble

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32372&group=comp.theory#32372

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad> <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:22:55 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3515
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 21:22 UTC

On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows why,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>> input actually specifies.
>>>
>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet
>>> people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to
>> be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>
> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>

THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping
is defined differently.

If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem,
then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.

You lack of understanding of this just proves your own level (total lack
of) competence in this area.

FAIL.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32383&group=comp.theory#32383

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:48:21 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:48:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 72
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IWeZEG44Lfndr5SJahKnwWkHzF8jX4mhsEmuXE+kPQgFVMuHOFbtyN2Q+PDa95iJGZQs+hUxWBD5hzA!xWa3TDHXADnM2vu2ZsWGpn1JYuB8wV1ewGczbfsjcyw+rcB835fpZzCKJRGRAuAJPzepar5IUa4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4635
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 21:48 UTC

On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
>>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>> this input actually specifies.
>>>>
>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months,
>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
>>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED
>>> to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>
>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is
>> the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct
>> simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>>
>
> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping
> is defined differently.
>
> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem,
> then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>

Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the
liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is
simply untrue.

That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases)
directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that
requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs
conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria
is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32388&group=comp.theory#32388

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:04:38 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4863
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 22:04 UTC

On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
>>>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>>> this input actually specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months,
>>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the easily
>>>>> verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED
>>>> to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>
>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure
>>> is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a
>>> correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping
>> is defined differently.
>>
>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem,
>> then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>
>
> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the
> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is
> simply untrue.
>
> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases)
> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that
> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs
> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria
> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
>

You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. They can be
non-sensical or inconsistent, but the definition of Halting doesn't have
that problem, any computation will either Halt or Not.

Maybe, it is non-sensical to think you can ask a Turing Machine to
compute the Halting Mapping, but that just means the answer to the
Halting Problem is that NO, there does not exist such a machine. It does
NOT mean that the machine can be correct giving some other answer.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32390&group=comp.theory#32390

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:06:48 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:06:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 82
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EKPkmSM1EpLPWlk51UdNIl8mFi029MU7fGqb0NA4lhWQg7iR7uOnMRIQz6ygJLETTBWaFGB4Ro3J6uj!pG+wdz2YlJ2+n80NqXEr/XO10t8+jhaeiUbWltOJcMX5CfLtEdHIEMgu5YeVyi3cTqI6xjzv94I=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5269
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 22:06 UTC

On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
>>>>>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>>>> this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months,
>>>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the
>>>>>> easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED
>>>>> to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>
>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure
>>>> is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a
>>>> correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>
>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem,
>>> then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>
>>
>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that
>> the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar
>> paradox is simply untrue.
>>
>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare
>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science
>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their
>> inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem
>> criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
>>
>
> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.

That is a naive thing to say.
This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same
system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth
actually works.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32398&group=comp.theory#32398

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:46:33 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="28271"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tKB0BLaI6VOjWpr94+fMF85j8uZ82r0A="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B0J8tlra8/lgVuJvhsREZovcV3Y=
sha1:UCK6teDwpwv2Barfur1FoBsYOuI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.49d733ad7a3e06911b2f.20220513234633BST.87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 13 May 2022 22:46 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>
>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>
>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>
> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
> input actually specifies.

But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
nonsense.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32400&group=comp.theory#32400

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:57:49 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:57:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2Va99abGEwwrq5/LZafPoOV6JQ8qCjMOf0pvFKjne7G9TLwB8ECMFoko+NK6gXGc/u3+aybzFYTTyZd!nqzEAMC6TnbB/e0487Sv0ujPYCbFuVRomZy9lziDziVvoJMidpDdoVyJujStXH1Q8Sf2zFaD6+s=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3429
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 22:57 UTC

On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>
>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>> input actually specifies.
>
> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
> nonsense.
>

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.

Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must
compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly
specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs)
at all.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32408&group=comp.theory#32408

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
<FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:07:26 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5669
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:07 UTC

On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the
>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months,
>>>>>>> yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring the
>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is
>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure
>>>>> is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a
>>>>> correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>
>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that
>>> the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar
>>> paradox is simply untrue.
>>>
>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare
>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science
>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their
>>> inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem
>>> criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
>>>
>>
>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
>> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>
> That is a naive thing to say.
> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same
> system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth
> actually works.
>
>

Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. That is
the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent systems tend to
make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend to be able to
prove and disprove a lot in such a system).

Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual
system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the
definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model.

We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but
technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad model.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32409&group=comp.theory#32409

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:09:41 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:09:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
<FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-SQ13kGo/TwjTEeJpNV4Pgj3NKnyRope4lOAaEi+faSGU6oY7Oj1+oBw4oNJd5i88IJ588RXA7m1CEcj!rmL4cYYpLj9p6ukPkp1KZFCkC3S6nOex2ZBy1z5NBTjux/y/NMVjRFPFxNb/ZUDKD/xNzaRX3Ns=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6427
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:09 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the
>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct
>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six
>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply ignoring
>>>>>>>> the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>>>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is
>>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other
>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated
>>>>>> by a correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not
>>>> a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove
>>>> that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the
>>>> liar paradox is simply untrue.
>>>>
>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare
>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science
>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their
>>>> inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting
>>>> problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered)
>>>> rare cases.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
>>> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>>
>> That is a naive thing to say.
>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same
>> system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth
>> actually works.
>>
>>
>
> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent.

Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of
correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.

> That is
> the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent systems tend to
> make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend to be able to
> prove and disprove a lot in such a system).
>
> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual
> system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the
> definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model.
>
> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but
> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad model.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<3zBfK.8353$Yfl6.5933@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32410&group=comp.theory#32410

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <3zBfK.8353$Yfl6.5933@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:09:51 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3369
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:09 UTC

On 5/13/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows why,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>
>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>> input actually specifies.
>>
>> But not obvious enough to get it published!  Come, now.  You know its
>> nonsense.
>>
>
> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>
> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must
> compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly
> specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs)
> at all.
>

STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about.

You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT simulation
(which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in the middle)

You also prove you still don't understand what a computation is.

FAIL.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<HbadncN5hvWyeuP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32413&group=comp.theory#32413

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:18:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:18:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3zBfK.8353$Yfl6.5933@fx41.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <3zBfK.8353$Yfl6.5933@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <HbadncN5hvWyeuP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 70
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-obnTG5fwBJW8cXiTXoBwXgnpXR5lPGKf6xNJavklvz/64LSmbn0nJmnggVqL+zO+PdHDvxyOzst7d+Y!eOtpUvKcLGLeIe/SBrE+W9ViqSR3dn8iUrMTJXjohk2E3FQW3gcisjrnED+AH0hZvgX0VS5xAMc=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4318
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:18 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>
>>> But not obvious enough to get it published!  Come, now.  You know its
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>>
>> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it
>> must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs
>> explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of
>> its inputs) at all.
>>
>
> STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT simulation
> (which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in the middle)

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H
has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running.

>
> You also prove you still don't understand what a computation is.
>
> FAIL.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32414&group=comp.theory#32414

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.nntp4.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad> <0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad> <FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com> <XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad> <FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad> <zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:20:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6765
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:20 UTC

On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the
>>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six
>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply
>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month
>>>>>>>>> period.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the
>>>>>>>> "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is
>>>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other
>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as
>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the
>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not
>>>>> a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove
>>>>> that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the
>>>>> liar paradox is simply untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare
>>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science
>>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from
>>>>> their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the halting
>>>>> problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered)
>>>>> rare cases.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>> Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>>>
>>> That is a naive thing to say.
>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same
>>> system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth
>>> actually works.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent.
>
> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of
> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.

Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions.

If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that you
have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't to
find truth but to create obfuscation.

I guess just want you systems to be defined that we can't tell it they
are correct at all (if more than a toy).

Actually PROVING that a system is not inconsistent within that system is
beyond the reach of most systems, and can only be done in very finite
systems.

If that is all you logic is good for, you are setting your self up to be
ignored.

>
>
>> That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent
>> systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend
>> to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system).
>>
>> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual
>> system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the
>> definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model.
>>
>> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but
>> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad
>> model.
>
>

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<jMCdnVmF4bGPdOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32418&group=comp.theory#32418

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:26:10 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:26:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
<FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>
<zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jMCdnVmF4bGPdOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 136
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-k59xXPHFcRGAsKNU/7XVS+2UH/0bWCspkrwNkZNVSKXHqjkjUldmuDJ5iPmatq2eea3KR4grGvehGVg!tai304nIAkjJpL7WdExx4Tbl91foO/+PtMNokBQBCqy+70hHbosvrSRdIR2cgNN02LsS9+HMvGM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7579
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:26 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the
>>>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six
>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply
>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month
>>>>>>>>>> period.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is
>>>>>>>>> DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other
>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as
>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the
>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is
>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot
>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that
>>>>>> the liar paradox is simply untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare
>>>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science
>>>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from
>>>>>> their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the
>>>>>> halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously
>>>>>> undiscovered) rare cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking
>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>>>>
>>>> That is a naive thing to say.
>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the
>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that
>>>> truth actually works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent.
>>
>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of
>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.
>
> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions.
>

I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how symbolic
logic diverges from this.

> If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that you
> have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't to
> find truth but to create obfuscation.
>
> I guess just want you systems to be defined that we can't tell it they
> are correct at all (if more than a toy).
>
> Actually PROVING that a system is not inconsistent within that system is
> beyond the reach of most systems, and can only be done in very finite
> systems.
>
> If that is all you logic is good for, you are setting your self up to be
> ignored.
>
>>
>>
>>> That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent
>>> systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend
>>> to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system).
>>>
>>> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the actual
>>> system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make the
>>> definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad model.
>>>
>>> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but
>>> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad
>>> model.
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32424&group=comp.theory#32424

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:03:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="15397"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wB4fviYxKNHGVGR2fnkexyFjoJ1E8Ztg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wSeev7XR9GiMnMtfvH9TCo2U3bo=
sha1:lIGX53k/fpR3PfltcTkVUTR9dIQ=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.2fdd69115f2c78c846c8.20220514010307BST.87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:03 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>
>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>> input actually specifies.
>>
>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
>> nonsense.
>
> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.

But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world
wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<smCfK.43261$qMI1.13073@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32426&group=comp.theory#32426

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
<FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>
<zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad>
<jMCdnVmF4bGPdOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <jMCdnVmF4bGPdOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <smCfK.43261$qMI1.13073@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:04:40 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8320
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:04 UTC

On 5/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six
>>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply
>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six month
>>>>>>>>>>> period.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other
>>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as
>>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the
>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is
>>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot
>>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him
>>>>>>> that the liar paradox is simply untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare
>>>>>>> cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science
>>>>>>> decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> their inputs conclusively proves that the definition of the
>>>>>>> halting problem criteria is incorrect in these (previously
>>>>>>> undiscovered) rare cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking
>>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a naive thing to say.
>>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the
>>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that
>>>>> truth actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent.
>>>
>>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of
>>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.
>>
>> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions.
>>
>
> I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how symbolic
> logic diverges from this.

IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then you
are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the rules.

If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its head,
you really need to be working in the fields that deal with the core
basics of how logic works.

Comutation Theory and the Halting Problem is NOT where to try to change
those things. The fact that you even think it is tends to be a pretty
good sign that you don't really understand what you are talking about.

My guess is that if you actually had an idea of that level, you needed
to start decades ago in the right places for THAT sort of discussion.

As it is, you claim to have very limited time, and have ruined any
reputation that you might have hoped to have, so you are proably doomed
to fail at establishing any sort of new class of logic based on your ideas.

>
>> If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that
>> you have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't
>> to find truth but to create obfuscation.
>>
>> I guess just want you systems to be defined that we can't tell it they
>> are correct at all (if more than a toy).
>>
>> Actually PROVING that a system is not inconsistent within that system
>> is beyond the reach of most systems, and can only be done in very
>> finite systems.
>>
>> If that is all you logic is good for, you are setting your self up to
>> be ignored.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent
>>>> systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you
>>>> tend to be able to prove and disprove a lot in such a system).
>>>>
>>>> Now, a given definition might make a system not model well the
>>>> actual system that it is supposed to model. But that doesn't make
>>>> the definition incorrect in the system, but makes the system a bad
>>>> model.
>>>>
>>>> We might talk about that definition as being 'incorrect', but
>>>> technically, it IS correct in that system and makes the system a bad
>>>> model.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<2rCfK.150$6XNb.66@fx07.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32429&group=comp.theory#32429

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3zBfK.8353$Yfl6.5933@fx41.iad>
<HbadncN5hvWyeuP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <HbadncN5hvWyeuP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <2rCfK.150$6XNb.66@fx07.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:09:33 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4686
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:09 UTC

On 5/13/22 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here knows
>>>>>>>> why, but
>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>
>>>> But not obvious enough to get it published!  Come, now.  You know its
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>>>
>>> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it
>>> must compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs
>>> explicitly specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function
>>> of its inputs) at all.
>>>
>>
>> STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT
>> simulation (which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in
>> the middle)
>
>
> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H
> has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running.

No, it has been proven that H can't possibly simulate the input to a
final state, so you have proved that H can't prove its input Halts. You
haven't proved that it doesn't halt, at least not by the REAL definition
of Halting (which you aren't allowed to change).

H has NOT proven that the input won't halt, only that H can't prove that
the input halts.

H has used UNSOUND logic to conclude that the input doesn't halt, as it
assumes that the copy of H it is simulating won't abort its simulation
of its input, when this is NOT true (at least if H is a computation).
Thus H HASN'T actually proved the input is non-halting and thus makes an
error and gets the wrong answer.

>
>
>>
>> You also prove you still don't understand what a computation is.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>
>

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<f8ednb52fY4BbuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32430&group=comp.theory#32430

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:11:08 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:11:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <f8ednb52fY4BbuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 67
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dgNAkR++iLRFpkc7Mw2kDN0MKGGIPqcJpY9VQb4pYcZsKnv4gML4Lr3iIMp2+BSj8j373gx3lxT+dL7!7kSSsyQ+LpgQTME6TyOHEm51XkwWnUfOMUXPIN7WO4apHQMB4J1j4SpJTYZlO92Wxj+/W3kI+uQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4642
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:11 UTC

On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>
>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
>>> nonsense.
>>
>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>
> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world
> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published.
>

That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases)
directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that
requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs
conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria
is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H
has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running.

It has been empirically proven that H1(P,P)==1 is the correct halt
status for the input to H1(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
correct simulation of the input to H1(P,P) that H1 derives halts.

Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must
compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly
specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs)
at all.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32432&group=comp.theory#32432

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:18:16 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<f8ednb52fY4BbuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="15397"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18h8iYne65zGu39Em8KwNNMibY0g38fp4E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aTYm6np57L7e8kED2EIZp6FZSmU=
sha1:q2dvEszsZ1Ym0xpd7OeHJpVAJeE=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.2f2975c31907677bc044.20220514011816BST.875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:18 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>
>>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
>>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>>
>> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world
>> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published.
>
> That the definition of the halting problem criteria

There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and
the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but
only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of
those.)

The function call P(P) unambiguously halts. Your H can not tell us this
fact. By no longer talking about actual halting, you are, in effect,
agreeing that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) == true if and only if
X(Y) halts and false otherwise.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<kpWdnUQgUMRdaOP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32433&group=comp.theory#32433

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:20:16 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:20:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jYyfK.3614$cQO2.590@fx47.iad>
<0f-dnTKZ0rhsIOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <P_zfK.777$JXmb.496@fx03.iad>
<FJWdnaiuhYG4T-P_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
<XBAfK.1465$j0D5.353@fx09.iad>
<FNudnQpo7sTlS-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<PwBfK.8352$Yfl6.6562@fx41.iad>
<zaWdnfMK_d2oeOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<DIBfK.9401$pqKf.630@fx12.iad>
<jMCdnVmF4bGPdOP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<smCfK.43261$qMI1.13073@fx96.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <smCfK.43261$qMI1.13073@fx96.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <kpWdnUQgUMRdaOP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 142
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-laBhnDK7Z24qGEffsQo6WKjGdV2ZTYhWu5wsHT6pJ1jos5HezErZf5r2iQqRThdg9UGwNehRMqnJohZ!DXbo3OEV52FmbAe2sF2G8Ad3VMPpCIivDbBuIy/93tG6E1O+RLGK9uQ34DVJ+5jixFqjUroVWM4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8401
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:20 UTC

On 5/13/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six
>>>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six
>>>>>>>>>>>> month period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other
>>>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is
>>>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot
>>>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him
>>>>>>>> that the liar paradox is simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some
>>>>>>>> rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer
>>>>>>>> science decider that requires all deciders to compute the
>>>>>>>> mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the
>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in these
>>>>>>>> (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking
>>>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a naive thing to say.
>>>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the
>>>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that
>>>>>> truth actually works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of
>>>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.
>>>
>>> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions.
>>>
>>
>> I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how
>> symbolic logic diverges from this.
>
> IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then you
> are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the rules.

When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that
they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect.

>
> If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its head,
> you really need to be working in the fields that deal with the core
> basics of how logic works.
>

This issue is the philosophical foundation of logic is inconsistent.

> Comutation Theory and the Halting Problem is NOT where to try to change
> those things. The fact that you even think it is tends to be a pretty
> good sign that you don't really understand what you are talking about.
>
> My guess is that if you actually had an idea of that level, you needed
> to start decades ago in the right places for THAT sort of discussion.
>

I started in 1997. The HP is the only concrete example where all of the
details of the error in the philosophical foundation of logic can be
shown in all of its complete detail as actually fully operational code.

Every other way of proving my point has gaps in reasoning that have been
hard-wired into the conventional definitions of terms of the art.

When I try to correct these errors people simply assume that I do not
correctly know the proper definition.

> As it is, you claim to have very limited time, and have ruined any
> reputation that you might have hoped to have, so you are proably doomed
> to fail at establishing any sort of new class of logic based on your ideas.
>
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<kpWdnUcgUMSwa-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32435&group=comp.theory#32435

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:22:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:22:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb52fY4BbuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <kpWdnUcgUMSwa-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JOzoBKjzwyfV6ZtavE/CierDOsFgJW5flXu0/ukLTTeJgdkLv/nj4XcE61jH9/gfBz0Ua/SOKdlYsiu!W49ODX7fwFmSxwNW1TuXwH/ZVpflC5ZVD4G2qp/Ut2fZsSTGgdr1AKVQtH/0od0SzaHB/cKFhzw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4498
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:22 UTC

On 5/13/2022 7:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>>>
>>> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world
>>> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published.
>>
>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria
>
> There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and
> the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but
> only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of
> those.)
>
> The function call P(P) unambiguously halts. Your H can not tell us this
> fact. By no longer talking about actual halting, you are, in effect,
> agreeing that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) == true if and only if
> X(Y) halts and false otherwise.
>

Learned-by-rote by-the-book people can't get past the fact that the book
really cannot be relied upon as infallible because it is their only basis.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]

<87tu9tt0tl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32437&group=comp.theory#32437

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:28:06 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <87tu9tt0tl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <2pSdnR25lqHLZub_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875ymb7gg2.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<66idnbnmOdNtyeH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fslf5ze1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dbudnSEVKLqG7OH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilqa2wgk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<2e-dnTTLY8HyC-D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0aq1d74.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<HKydnWXX6OcOLuD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtflzo9k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<44CdnVMP0pZ3E-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6pxned.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<fpOdnQv1NvP2LeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6blvynq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfQK_d3wf-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkw1ugjo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<f8ednb52fY4BbuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ym9ufuf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<kpWdnUcgUMSwa-P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="15397"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4CVwbrfipk6IWZ4JU0JjkUHmfETJKCDc="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PHc1K2lv/t8CAheNy95YqReWgcU=
sha1:3O2eUw4CF8E+v8x1Eku4m9dAEYg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.bd7a2e7c2e27cc768db6.20220514012806BST.87tu9tt0tl.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:28 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 7:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 7:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but
>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single
>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before
>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the
>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>> status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>>>>
>>>> But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world
>>>> wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published.
>>>
>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria
>> There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and
>> the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but
>> only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of
>> those.)
>> The function call P(P) unambiguously halts. Your H can not tell us this
>> fact. By no longer talking about actual halting, you are, in effect,
>> agreeing that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) == true if and only if
>> X(Y) halts and false otherwise.
>
> Learned-by-rote by-the-book people can't get past the fact that the
> book really cannot be relied upon as infallible because it is their
> only basis.

Not-learned-by-any-method people spout nonsense on Usenet all the time.
They don't get papers published. They don't contribute the sum total of
human knowledge.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Pages:1234
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor