Copyright violations of Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) will not be
tolerated. Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) is Copyright (c) 2022 Mr
Flibble.

/Flibble

On 10/29/2022 10:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Copyright violations of Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) will not be
> tolerated. Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) is Copyright (c) 2022 Mr
> Flibble.
>
> /Flibble
>

Everyone knows that you are only a troll.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 10:51:13 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/29/2022 10:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Copyright violations of Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) will not be
> > tolerated. Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) is Copyright (c) 2022 Mr
> > Flibble.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Everyone knows that you are only a troll.

A troll that has achieved something that you have not: designed a
WORKING halt decider.

/Flibble

On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 10:51:13 -0500
> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/29/2022 10:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > Copyright violations of Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) will not be
> > > tolerated. Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) is Copyright (c) 2022 Mr
> > > Flibble.
> > >
> > > /Flibble
> > >
> >
> > Everyone knows that you are only a troll.
> A troll that has achieved something that you have not: designed a
> WORKING halt decider.
>
> /Flibble

"Misstatement of legal fact"

On 11/29/2022 6:01 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 10:51:13 -0500
>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2022 10:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Copyright violations of Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) will not be
>>>> tolerated. Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) is Copyright (c) 2022 Mr
>>>> Flibble.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone knows that you are only a troll.
>> A troll that has achieved something that you have not: designed a
>> WORKING halt decider.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> "Misstatement of legal fact"

None of this pertain to facts of law, thus none of this is any sort of
legal fact.

Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 16:01:38 -0800, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 10:51:13 -0500 olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/29/2022 10:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> > > Copyright violations of Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) will not be
>> > > tolerated. Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) is Copyright (c) 2022 Mr
>> > > Flibble.
>> > >
>> > > /Flibble
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Everyone knows that you are only a troll.
>> A troll that has achieved something that you have not: designed a
>> WORKING halt decider.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> "Misstatement of legal fact"

I've moved on, perhaps you should too.

/Flibble

On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
> too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
> restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.

Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.

Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
the input that don't match the requirements.

Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.

If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
Decider.

To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
deciding it.

Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.

These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
correct answer is the empty set,

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:19:22 PM UTC-8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
> > too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
> > restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.
> Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
> by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.
>
> Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
> to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
> ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
> inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
> the input that don't match the requirements.
>
> Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
> isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.
>
> If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
> like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
> name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
> Decider.
>
> To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
> program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
> H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
> deciding it.
>
> Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
> precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
> H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
> isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
> simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
> you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.
>
> These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
> correct answer is the empty set,

"Misstatement of legal fact"

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:19:22 PM UTC-8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
> > > too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
> > > restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.
> > Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
> > by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.
> >
> > Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
> > to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
> > ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
> > inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
> > the input that don't match the requirements.
> >
> > Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
> > isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.
> >
> > If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
> > like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
> > name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
> > Decider.
> >
> > To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
> > program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
> > H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
> > deciding it.
> >
> > Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
> > precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
> > H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
> > isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
> > simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
> > you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.
> >
> > These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
> > correct answer is the empty set,
> "Misstatement of legal fact"

You weren't looking to get legal advice online, and in actuality didn't? Something like that.

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 2:50:11 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:19:22 PM UTC-8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
> > > > too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
> > > > restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.
> > > Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
> > > by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.
> > >
> > > Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
> > > to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
> > > ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
> > > inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
> > > the input that don't match the requirements.
> > >
> > > Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
> > > isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.
> > >
> > > If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
> > > like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
> > > name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
> > > Decider.
> > >
> > > To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
> > > program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
> > > H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
> > > deciding it.
> > >
> > > Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
> > > precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
> > > H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
> > > isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
> > > simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
> > > you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.
> > >
> > > These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
> > > correct answer is the empty set,
> > "Misstatement of legal fact"
> You weren't looking to get legal advice online, and in actuality didn't? Something like that.

"Oh, I think..."
Do you really? Often these sort of gamesters will give you "feigned hypotheses", things they don't really think anyone "sober" would believe.
(They somehow don't know that's you, etc.)

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 12:44:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 2:50:11 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:19:22 PM UTC-8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
> > > > > too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
> > > > > restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.
> > > > Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
> > > > by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.
> > > >
> > > > Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
> > > > to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
> > > > ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
> > > > inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
> > > > the input that don't match the requirements.
> > > >
> > > > Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
> > > > isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.
> > > >
> > > > If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
> > > > like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
> > > > name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
> > > > Decider.
> > > >
> > > > To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
> > > > program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
> > > > H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
> > > > deciding it.
> > > >
> > > > Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
> > > > precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
> > > > H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
> > > > isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
> > > > simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
> > > > you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.
> > > >
> > > > These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
> > > > correct answer is the empty set,
> > > "Misstatement of legal fact"
> > You weren't looking to get legal advice online, and in actuality didn't? Something like that.
> "Oh, I think..."
> Do you really? Often these sort of gamesters will give you "feigned hypotheses", things they don't really think anyone "sober" would believe.
> (They somehow don't know that's you, etc.)

"Copyright law is so hard anymores, anyway."

On 12/19/2022 5:24 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 12:44:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 2:50:11 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:19:22 PM UTC-8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
>>>>>> too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
>>>>>> restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.
>>>>> Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
>>>>> by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
>>>>> to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
>>>>> ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
>>>>> inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
>>>>> the input that don't match the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
>>>>> isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
>>>>> like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
>>>>> name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
>>>>> program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
>>>>> H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
>>>>> deciding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
>>>>> precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
>>>>> H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
>>>>> isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
>>>>> simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
>>>>> you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
>>>>> correct answer is the empty set,
>>>> "Misstatement of legal fact"
>>> You weren't looking to get legal advice online, and in actuality didn't? Something like that.
>> "Oh, I think..."
>> Do you really? Often these sort of gamesters will give you "feigned hypotheses", things they don't really think anyone "sober" would believe.
>> (They somehow don't know that's you, etc.)
>
> "Copyright law is so hard anymores, anyway."

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 6:50:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 5:24 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 12:44:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 2:50:11 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:19:22 PM UTC-8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/29/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> Technically a halt decider must be all knowing and a halt determiner is
> >>>>>> too much of an unfamiliar term so I use the term halt decider and
> >>>>>> restrict its domain to a well defined set of inputs.
> >>>>> Programs don't "Know", they "Compute", and YES, a correct Halt Decider
> >>>>> by the Theory needs to be able to COMPUTE the answer for EVERY problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note, the term "Halt Determiner" is WELL DEFINED, and in fact, is know
> >>>>> to exist. In computation Theory, a "Determiner" is a machine that will
> >>>>> ACCEPT all input that match its requirements, and might reject some
> >>>>> inputs that don't, but is allowed to no answer some for some (or all) of
> >>>>> the input that don't match the requirements.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Restricting your Halt Decider Definition to just select inputs means it
> >>>>> isn't actually a Halt Decider, so technically your whole work is worthless.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If your goal it to just decide the one particular input from templates
> >>>>> like the Linz proof, then you really need to add a qualifier to the
> >>>>> name, or you are just LYING. Perhaps you should call it a Partial Halt
> >>>>> Decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To make you point, you do still need to get it to answer the EXACT
> >>>>> program from that template. H needs to be able to answer about the
> >>>>> H^/P/D that is built from the exact H that is claimed to correctly be
> >>>>> deciding it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note, this means your set theory is not applicable, or perhaps more
> >>>>> precisely doesn't prove what you want to prove, as it just shows that no
> >>>>> H in your set can correct predict that its input is Halting, not that it
> >>>>> isn't, as for every H that does answer, the H^/P/D built on it is NEVER
> >>>>> simulated to the point that proves that it doesn't halt. The only ones
> >>>>> you do are those that are built on an H that never answers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These are two disjoint sets, so the set of machines that have given the
> >>>>> correct answer is the empty set,
> >>>> "Misstatement of legal fact"
> >>> You weren't looking to get legal advice online, and in actuality didn't? Something like that.
> >> "Oh, I think..."
> >> Do you really? Often these sort of gamesters will give you "feigned hypotheses", things they don't really think anyone "sober" would believe.
> >> (They somehow don't know that's you, etc.)
> >
> > "Copyright law is so hard anymores, anyway."
> --
> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Won't Work: "Do you guys think those 'empty messages' are magic, or something?"