Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail files register newsreader groups login

Message-ID:

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" -- R. Frost

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

Subject	Author
Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior YES/NO	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior YES/NO	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	immibis
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	olcott
When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	olcott
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	Mikko
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	Richard Damon
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	olcott
Re: When H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports on the behavior it actually sees then it is correct	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --l	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --w	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --w	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --w	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --O	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Mikko
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --n	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --a	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	Richard Damon
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	immibis
Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior	olcott

Pages:1 2 3 4 5 6 789 10 11 12 13

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --Olcott willful ignorance--

<usofcr$1j3v1$3@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54723&group=comp.theory#54723

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--Olcott_willful_ignorance--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:41:27 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usofcr$1j3v1$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me>
<usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me>
<usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me>
<usne42$1hqqe$4@i2pn2.org> <uso2f2$3sd10$1@dont-email.me>
<uso6d9$1ipmg$2@i2pn2.org> <usobon$3u623$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:41:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1675233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <usobon$3u623$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:41 UTC

On 3/11/24 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/24 6:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 1:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you have rotely repeated that many times, not knowing what
>>>>>> that implies, or doesn't imply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>   Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>> halt
>>>>>
>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> A "submachine" doesn't have a requirement except to act as the
>>>> machine it is a copy of.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a sub-machine.
>>
>> OF course there is.
>>
>> What do you think H^.H is?
>>
>> You are just showing how stupid you are.
>
> An an abstract concept that humans can talk about that
> cannot actually be implemented as any actual aspect of
> any actual Turing machine.

So, you admit you were wrong, and are just stupid.

Why isn't H^.H the implementation in the Turing Machine H^ of a
submachine that is a copy of H?

>
> The ghost of Bug Bunny exists as a fictional idea.

So seems most of your ideas.

>
>>>
>>>> So, what you are REALLY Saying is that:
>>>>
>>>> H (H^) (H^) gets the wrong answer for every implementation of H,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both answers of YES and NO are incorrect for any H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> that is inconsistent with the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when an
>>> exact copy of this same H is embedded within Ĥ.
>>
>> No, there IS a 'Correct answer', it just isn't the one that that H gives.
>>
>
> You are bullshitting yourself, yet not bullshitting me.
> There is no correct answer for the H/⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ program/input pair.

If H (H^) (H^) says Qn, as you normally say, then it is a FACT that
H^ (H^) will go to Qn and Halt,

And thus the CORRECT ANSWER is Qy.

If you changed your mind, an now H (H^) (H^) says Qy, then it is a fact
that H^ (H^) will also goto Qy and loop forever.

And thus, the CORRECT ANSWER is Qn

THERE IS A CORRECT ANSWER, ALWAYS

THIS H just doesn't say it, because it was programmed to say the other.

YOU are the one doing Bullshit, because you just don't understand what a
program is and does.

>
> You and Daryl McCullough act like someone physically gagged
> H/⟨Ĥ⟩ with a piece of cloth.

No, but their programming does force them to say only one thing, that
which there programming tells them to say.

>
> It is not that they can't speak it is that both YES and NO
> are the wrong answer when they do speak.
No, ONE of them is the only thing the CAN speak, as that is the results
of their programming, that is the only thing they CAN do.

The OTHER one is the actual correct answer.

>
>> This has been explained to you many times, but you just seem to be too
>> stupid to understand.
>>
>> Unless H actually IS a correc
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Because both YES and NO are the wrong answer for this H
>>> it is a logical impossibility H to answer that question
>>> correctly.
>>
>> But not for the question to have a correct answer.
>
> *For program/input pair: H/⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
> *For program/input pair: H/⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
> *For program/input pair: H/⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both YES and NO are the wrong answer*
>
>

No. See above.

You are just provving yourself to be a Childish Pathetic Hypocritical
Ignorant Pathological Lying Idiot.

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usofio$1j3v1$4@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54724&group=comp.theory#54724

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:44:33 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usofio$1j3v1$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me>
<usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me>
<usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me>
<uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me>
<usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:44:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1675233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:44 UTC

On 3/11/24 7:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> Troll detected.
>

I think you are smelling YOUR Troll POOP

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54725&group=comp.theory#54725

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:52:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org>
<usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org>
<usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org>
<usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
<usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me>
<usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:52:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="4159213"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oks1LHlP+BL5EevBpQojq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/i4v0kLWsis2d1BFjfRvxEoFcHY=
In-Reply-To: <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:52 UTC

On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 9:13 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/03/24 02:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 7:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/24 14:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> You agree. And since every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the
>>>>> same answer as H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (it is stipulated) then obviously H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ also gets the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This proves that both Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ are being asked
>>>> a YES/NO question where bot YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> There's a right answer. It just isn't the one that H gives.
>>>
>>>>>>> It is also true that every instance of that question has a right
>>>>>>> answer, it just isn't the one that H gives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every decision problem that includes undecidable instances only has
>>>>>> these instances because there is something wrong with the decision
>>>>>> problem specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> so what is wrong with it?
>>>>>
>>>> Whenever anyone or anything is asks a YES/NO question
>>>> where both YES and NO are the wrong answer the whole
>>>> question is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>
>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>>
>>>>>>     The proof of the halting problem assumes a universal halt
>>>>>>     test exists and then provides S as an example of a program
>>>>>>     that the test cannot handle. But S is not a program at all.
>>>>>>     It is not even a conceptual object, and this is due to
>>>>>>     inconsistencies in the specification of the halting function.
>>>>>>     (Stoddart: 2017)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you tell me a consistent universal halt test I will tell you a
>>>>> consistent program that the test cannot handle. It will definitely
>>>>> be a program. There will be no valid rebuttal that it isn't a
>>>>> program at all.
>>>>
>>>> The gist of his idea is correct even if the exact words are not.
>>>
>>> The gist of his idea is that S is not even a program. That is
>>> incredibly wrong and stupid. If H is a program, then S is a program.
>>>
>>>>>> *This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>>>>>> *This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>>>>>> *This is my unique contribution to the field of the Halting Problem*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we ask H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩:
>>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not ask it that. We ask it whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩. This
>>>>> is an objective specification, not subjective.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we ask Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ whether Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> both YES and NO are the wrong answer for Ĥ.H.
>>>
>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer, the
>>> whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>
>> Troll detected.
>>
>
> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer

Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.

That people keep trying to get away with the strawman deception on
this is very telling.

> , the whole
> rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>
> Once we don't understand that YES or NO is the right answer, we call the
> other person a troll.
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --Olcott willful ignorance--

<usoht6$2vll$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54726&group=comp.theory#54726

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--Olcott_willful_ignorance--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:24:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <usoht6$2vll$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me>
<usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me>
<usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me>
<usne42$1hqqe$4@i2pn2.org> <uso2f2$3sd10$1@dont-email.me>
<uso6d9$1ipmg$2@i2pn2.org> <usobon$3u623$1@dont-email.me>
<usofcr$1j3v1$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:24:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="97973"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4/MaTBdbxDFUEGoOwn3gi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ODFsDxi8jfUTdMtJCb/vx7xZI2s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usofcr$1j3v1$3@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:24 UTC

On 3/11/2024 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/11/24 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/11/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/24 6:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 1:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you have rotely repeated that many times, not knowing what
>>>>>>> that implies, or doesn't imply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>   Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>> not halt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>>   *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> A "submachine" doesn't have a requirement except to act as the
>>>>> machine it is a copy of.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a sub-machine.
>>>
>>> OF course there is.
>>>
>>> What do you think H^.H is?
>>>
>>> You are just showing how stupid you are.
>>
>> An an abstract concept that humans can talk about that
>> cannot actually be implemented as any actual aspect of
>> any actual Turing machine.
>
> So, you admit you were wrong, and are just stupid.
>
> Why isn't H^.H the implementation in the Turing Machine H^ of a
> submachine that is a copy of H?
>
>>
>> The ghost of Bug Bunny exists as a fictional idea.
>
> So seems most of your ideas.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, what you are REALLY Saying is that:
>>>>>
>>>>> H (H^) (H^) gets the wrong answer for every implementation of H,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both answers of YES and NO are incorrect for any H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> that is inconsistent with the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when an
>>>> exact copy of this same H is embedded within Ĥ.
>>>
>>> No, there IS a 'Correct answer', it just isn't the one that that H
>>> gives.
>>>
>>
>> You are bullshitting yourself, yet not bullshitting me.
>> There is no correct answer for the H/⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ program/input pair.
>
> If H (H^) (H^) says Qn, as you normally say, then it is a FACT that
> H^ (H^) will go to Qn and Halt,
>
> And thus the CORRECT ANSWER is Qy.
>
> If you changed your mind, an now H (H^) (H^) says Qy, then it is a fact
> that H^ (H^) will also goto Qy and loop forever.
>
> And thus, the CORRECT ANSWER is Qn
There is no correct answer for this (program/input pair): (H/⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩)

That you continue to try to get away with the strawman deception
and change to any other (program/input pair) seems to prove that
you are not being honest and have rebuttal rather that truth as your
priority.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54728&group=comp.theory#54728

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:31:02 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me>
<usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me>
<usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me>
<uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me>
<usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me>
<usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:31:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1675233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:31 UTC

On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
\ >>> Troll detected.
>>>
>>
>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>
> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.

The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their behavirs.

If H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, and thus H^,H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, then we
know that H^ (H^) goes to qn and Halts, and thus we DO have a correct
answer, it is Halting (qy)

On the other hand, If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, and thus H^,H (H^) (H^)
goes to qy, then we know that H^ (H^) goes to qy and then loops, and
thus we DO have a correct answer, it is Not Halting (qn)

Your dumb troll brain keeps forgetting that H is a DEFINED DEFINITE
PROGRAM when we ask the question, and it can only give the answer it was
programmed to give.

>
> That people keep trying to get away with the strawman deception on
> this is very telling.

Nope, we seem to have Olcott Straw Trolls.

>
>> , the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and incorrect.
>>
>> Once we don't understand that YES or NO is the right answer, we call
>> the other person a troll.
>>
>

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54730&group=comp.theory#54730

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:37:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org>
<usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org>
<usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org>
<usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
<usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me>
<usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me>
<usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:37:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="97973"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Ft1Wmza9z3Y9QvJrO0Jfq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0TcEb/cu9cwawsIdkNcokl7jAYI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:37 UTC

On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
> \
>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>
>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>
> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their behavirs.

H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

Since you know that is false why lie?
⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54731&group=comp.theory#54731

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:57:18 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me>
<usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me>
<usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me>
<uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me>
<usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me>
<usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me>
<usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:57:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1675233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me>

by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:57 UTC

On 3/11/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>> \
>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>
>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>
>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
>> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their behavirs.
>
> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Since you know that is false why lie?
> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.

Nope, read him again, not just skim and assume.

Should Represents the ARBITRARY path that THIS H will do.

You may need to find a real copy of the book where he explains his
notaitons.

So, YOU are the LIAR.

You are just a childish pathetic ignorant hypocritical pathological
lying idiot.

>
> Since you know that is false why lie?
> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>
> Since you know that is false why lie?
> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>
> Since you know that is false why lie?
> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>
>

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usok2o$3h5n$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54732&group=comp.theory#54732

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:01:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <usok2o$3h5n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org>
<usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org>
<usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org>
<usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
<usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me>
<usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me>
<usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>
<usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="115895"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0vazEKiP1dsccHwrxKVZl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UqYbGPzjaIc2otWS3WbYRVP+W8A=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:01 UTC

On 3/11/2024 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/11/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>>> \
>>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>>
>>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
>>> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their
>>> behavirs.
>>
>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Since you know that is false why lie?
>> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>
> Nope, read him again, not just skim and assume.
>
> Should Represents the ARBITRARY path that THIS H will do.
>

I have read it again and again since 2004, you are getting
this incorrectly. I have two copies of the book.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees --willful ignorance--

<usok4g$1j3v1$7@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54733&group=comp.theory#54733

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees_--willful_ignorance--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:02:24 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usok4g$1j3v1$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me>
<usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me>
<usnq3l$1iebk$1@i2pn2.org> <usnsn1$3r622$1@dont-email.me>
<usnvrb$1ikru$1@i2pn2.org> <uso12v$3s1sj$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:02:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1675233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <uso12v$3s1sj$2@dont-email.me>

by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:02 UTC

On 3/11/24 3:37 PM, olcott wrote:

>> Not for a GIVEN H^.
>>
>
> For every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can possibly
> exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to the question:
> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt.
>
>

Nope, for any GIVEN implementation of H, which yields an implementation
of H^, we have defined, by that given implementation what H (H^) (H^)
will do, and H^ will be built on that.

Case 1:

If H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, then H^.H (H^) (H^) also go to qn, and thus
H^ (H^) goes to qn and Halts.

So the correct answer is qy.

Case 2:

If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^.H (H^) (H^) also go to qy, and thus
H^ (H^) goes to qy and Loops.

So the correct answer is qn.

What case doesn't have a Correct answer?

You seem to be stuck not understanding what the question is actually asking.

It seems you think you get to change H at that point, but you don't.

H^ is NOT a template, however much you want it to be.

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usokfn$3h5n$2@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54734&group=comp.theory#54734

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:08:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <usokfn$3h5n$2@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org>
<usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org>
<usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org>
<usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me>
<usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me>
<usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me>
<usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org>
<usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me> <usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:08:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="115895"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/C8LatQXYgRWPa/CrKhJCR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EUgUl2HowERit9f9US5/w4CgzyA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:08 UTC

In other words you are claiming that Linz proved there is at least
one H that does not decide halting correctly on at least one input?

If Linz proved the there does not exist any H that gets every input
correctly then ⊢* specifies every possible encoding of H.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees --willful ignorance--

<usol6u$3h5n$3@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54736&group=comp.theory#54736

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees_--willful_ignorance--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:20:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <usol6u$3h5n$3@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org>
<usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org>
<usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad>
<uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org>
<uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org>
<usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me>
<usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me>
<usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me> <usnq3l$1iebk$1@i2pn2.org>
<usnsn1$3r622$1@dont-email.me> <usnvrb$1ikru$1@i2pn2.org>
<uso12v$3s1sj$2@dont-email.me> <usok4g$1j3v1$7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:20:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="115895"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wubcKFNiixBdQssT/wdR4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kX5Uvf8/kzH9dSbaLC8r1p86oOE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usok4g$1j3v1$7@i2pn2.org>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 04:20 UTC

On 3/11/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/11/24 3:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> Not for a GIVEN H^.
>>>
>>
>> For every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that can possibly
>> exist both YES and NO are the wrong answer to the question:
>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt.
>>
>>
>
> Nope, for any GIVEN implementation of H, which yields an implementation
> of H^, we have defined, by that given implementation what H (H^) (H^)
> will do, and H^ will be built on that.
>
> Case 1:
>
> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qn, then H^.H (H^) (H^) also go to qn, and thus
> H^ (H^) goes to qn and Halts.
>
> So the correct answer is qy.
>
>
> Case 2:
>
> If H (H^) (H^) goes to qy, then H^.H (H^) (H^) also go to qy, and thus
> H^ (H^) goes to qy and Loops.
>
> So the correct answer is qn.
>

By your reasoning since we know that the Liar Paradox:
"This sentence is not true." is not true, that makes it true.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usor6k$1jp3j$2@i2pn2.org>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54739&group=comp.theory#54739

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic

Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ
⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behav
ior_ZFC_--new_focus--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:03:00 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usor6k$1jp3j$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me>
<usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me>
<lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me>
<uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me>
<usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me>
<usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me>
<usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me>
<usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me>
<uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me>
<usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me>
<usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me>
<usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me>
<usojqv$1j3v1$6@i2pn2.org> <usokfn$3h5n$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:03:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1696883"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <usokfn$3h5n$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:03 UTC

On 3/11/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> \
>>>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>>>
>>>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can
>>>> ask this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their
>>>> behavirs.
>>>
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> Since you know that is false why lie?
>>> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.
>>
>> Nope, read him again, not just skim and assume.
>>
>
> In other words you are claiming that Linz proved there is at least
> one H that does not decide halting correctly on at least one input?
>
> If Linz proved the there does not exist any H that gets every input
> correctly then ⊢* specifies every possible encoding of H.
>
>

No, in first part of the proof, he proved that you can take ANY
arbitrary machine that claimes to be a Halt Decider, and then show there
is at least input it doesn't get correct.

That is most of the words where he talks about H, and H^ and the like.

THEN at the end, he points out that because we did this to ONE ARBITRARY
decider, we can do it to ANY and ALL deciders, thus none exist.

I thought you understood exhaustive categorical analysis?

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54744&group=comp.theory#54744

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:27:25 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad> <uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me> <usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me> <usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="237181"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191+rGs9tnMJS4IswyDoeO1"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:paZNqNjiS4OLdLmY5KqtyZsBXdA=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:27 UTC

On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you
>>>>>>>>>> haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are valid or
>>>>>>>> else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair defines an
>>>>>> execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or infinite.
>>>>>> Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>
>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>
>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL question, the
>>>> input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that changes by the decide
>>>> that it trying to decide it) then there are a LOT of machines that get
>>>> the right answer. The key is we know that there is ONE that doesn't,
>>>> the one that particular decider was built to foil. Thus, the problem
>>>> isn't an invalid question.
>>>
>>>
>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>
>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct yes/no answer
>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the wrong answer
>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a yes/no
>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this machine/input pair.
>>>
>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>> Are you a little girl?
>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>
>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you" varies.
> Exactly my point.
>
>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>
>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>
>> Likewise, because of "you".
> Exactly my point.
>
>> Also depens on when it is asked
>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>> a number).
>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>
>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>
>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>
>
> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
> the agent that performs it.

The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54745&group=comp.theory#54745

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:32:07 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <usmo12$3io83$2@dont-email.me> <usn6l2$3ltl1$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="239732"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/99MxmJiIetPBBN4FQaJoz"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ly0jlf731E0GZyhqeclt9Bfy5n4=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:32 UTC

On 2024-03-11 15:06:10 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 01:24:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you
>>>>>>>> haven't solved it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are valid or
>>>>>> else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair defines an
>>>> execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or infinite.
>>>> Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>
>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>
>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>
>> Apparently the answer is "no" as no such Turing machine is shown
>> or mentioned above.
>>
>
> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
> This proves that there is something wrong with the question.

No, it doesn't. It proves that there is something wrong with
every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets
the wrong answer the other answer is right.

--
Mikko

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior --Foundations--

<usp87g$7f7o$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54746&group=comp.theory#54746

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior --Foundations--
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:45:20 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <usp87g$7f7o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0u7$34bnj$1@dont-email.me> <usljen$385ff$1@dont-email.me> <hItHN.366352$q3F7.153154@fx45.iad> <uslrcc$3d3q0$1@dont-email.me> <uslsgn$1enef$20@i2pn2.org> <usm1ib$3ebq5$1@dont-email.me> <usm3ho$1enef$23@i2pn2.org> <usm5h9$3f27j$1@dont-email.me> <usm7mf$1enef$26@i2pn2.org> <usn49b$3lhv0$1@dont-email.me> <uso699$3t0l7$2@dont-email.me> <uso734$3t5aq$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="244984"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uYWAYEr+9qtZF9ghHXc8L"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KWRnwOmqdjHDv8iiA71k+ZNDUZo=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:45 UTC

On 2024-03-12 00:19:48 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 7:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 11/03/24 15:25, olcott wrote:
>>> I originated the term "ignorance squared" in 1998.
>>> One does not know that they do not know.
>>
>> You don't seem to know that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to get precisely
>> the same answer with absolutely no exceptions as H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> We have agreement on this point now.
> Until I worked out the execution trace of H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> I had a false assumption about this.

The truth about a stipulation is not in any execution trace.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usp8md$7iej$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54747&group=comp.theory#54747

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:53:17 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <usp8md$7iej$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usijm6$1bt2h$1@i2pn2.org> <usikk8$2gnhr$8@dont-email.me> <usiljd$2hc10$3@dont-email.me> <usineq$2hnpb$3@dont-email.me> <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me> <usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me> <usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="248275"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//sl3FZpgUomFw6daLy9+I"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OV7NRfRfBLw4P3396ZyajZr+/o4=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:53 UTC

On 2024-03-11 15:23:07 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-10 18:07:14 +0000, immibis said:
>>
>>> On 10/03/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
>>>> Unlike anything else that anyone else has ever done both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determine that they must abort their own
>>>> simulation to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>
>>> Wrong, they incorrectly determine this because they determine this even
>>> though it is not true.
>>
>> It doesn't matter much whther the determination of the need to abort
>> is correct or not. Either way, the after that determination and aborting,
>> the answer H gives is (for at least one input) wrong.
>>
>
> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees.
> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it cannot see.

Correctness is not defined in terms of what someting "sees". H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
is correct if it reports what the specifiation requires to be reported,
otherwise it is not. Whether it is possible to report what is required
is not relevant.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usp8t6$7bir$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54748&group=comp.theory#54748

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: F.Zwa...@HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:56:53 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <usp8t6$7bir$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiljd$2hc10$3@dont-email.me>
<usineq$2hnpb$3@dont-email.me> <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me>
<usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me>
<usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me>
<usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me>
<usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
<usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me>
<usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me> <usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me>
<usn87e$3mas0$1@dont-email.me> <usn8ct$3m7k2$5@dont-email.me>
<usno2e$3q0g4$1@dont-email.me> <usnoei$3q6km$2@dont-email.me>
<usnov7$3q0g4$2@dont-email.me> <usnp2l$3q6km$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:56:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b3e1637eb03bc73e971817fdd64a331";
logging-data="241243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/GYUCOUIdAc5cR+IRehITf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PrxS+O5pRbkHX/a3Rhj/xwab1as=
In-Reply-To: <usnp2l$3q6km$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

by: Fred. Zwarts - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:56 UTC

Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
> On 3/11/2024 3:18 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/11/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it
>>>>>>> sees.
>>>>>>> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it cannot
>>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should report on the actual behavior. Not the behavior that it
>>>>>> sees. If closes its eyes (when aborting), it does not see the
>>>>>> actual behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is
>>>>> correct*
>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>> running unless aborted then
>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He does not talk about simulation where the simulator closes its
>>>> eyes so that it does not see the actual behavior, but about
>>>> "correctly simulates" and "correctly determines".
>>>
>>> H1(D,D)==1 and H(D,D)==0 are being asked:
>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>
>>> As soon as H(D,D) sees that D is calling itself with
>>> its same input and there are no conditional branch
>>> instructions inbetween it has its abort criteria.
>>
>> So, it closes it eyes and does not see the actual behaviour that H
>> aborts, so that it halts.
>
> Not at all. Nothing like that. Are you a troll?

Please, argue, instead of denying.
If H would simulate a little bit further it would see the actual
behavior that D, after the abort, does halt. By aborting too early it
misses the actual behavior. So, it misses actual behavior by closing its
eyes. This is not the "correctly determines" meant by Sipser.

Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

<usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54749&group=comp.theory#54749

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:06:00 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <usp9e8$7nfb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usm4id$1enef$24@i2pn2.org> <usm5np$3f27j$2@dont-email.me> <usm6p0$1enef$25@i2pn2.org> <usn0d2$3klcn$1@dont-email.me> <uso6gi$3t0l7$3@dont-email.me> <usoa3t$3ttg8$1@dont-email.me> <usodpd$3uhqb$1@dont-email.me> <usoecc$3ujat$1@dont-email.me> <usoesp$3uo9o$1@dont-email.me> <usog2a$3utnd$1@dont-email.me> <usoi9m$1j3v1$5@i2pn2.org> <usoimh$2vll$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="253419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AHCozn+cWO1+qPnQSD0dC"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QuCJvuMnmjn/kbze31iTuk9AsEI=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:06 UTC

On 2024-03-12 03:37:53 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 9:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/24 03:24, olcott wrote:
>> \
>>>>> Troll detected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right answer
>>>
>>> Not for this decider/input question: Ĥ.H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> For that decider/input question both YES and NO are the wrong answer.
>>
>> The problem that you keeep on missing is that by the point we can ask
>> this question, H and H^ are FULLY CODED, and thus we know their
>> behavirs.
>
> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Since you know that is false why lie?
> ⊢* specifies an infinite set of encodings.

No, it does not. The notation is defined by Linz to denote
a finite sequence of configurations.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usp9mv$7pn3$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54750&group=comp.theory#54750

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:39 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <usp9mv$7pn3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usm2ps$1enef$22@i2pn2.org> <usm3eg$3em6b$1@dont-email.me> <usmnka$3imd4$1@dont-email.me> <usn67f$3ltl1$1@dont-email.me> <usn6m4$3m1o4$1@dont-email.me> <usn84q$3m7k2$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="255715"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mEgmLHQ1cDi3/dEEYDVZd"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WGy8kvKpGSKPwvPlqmhmkfc/6pY=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:10 UTC

On 2024-03-11 15:31:37 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 10:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 14:58:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/11/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 05:05:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>>> is an incorrect question for each Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>
>>>> It is incorrect in sthe sense that it is not the question
>>>> asked in the halting problem. Otherwise it can be a reasonable
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
>>> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>> unless aborted then
>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> When simulating termination analyzer H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes
>>> the mapping from its input to its own final state on
>>> the basis of the behavior that it actually sees then
>>> halting is always computable.
>>>
>>> Expecting it to compute the mapping from its input on
>>> the basis of behavior that it does not see is incorrect.
>>
>> None of that says anything about correctness of questions.
>>
>
> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
> It is the same as requiring sum(3,4) to report on the sum of 5 + 6.

Just read the specification of sum carefully and code accordingly.
What you think it should specify is irrelevant.

--
Mikko

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54751&group=comp.theory#54751

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:20:05 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 411
Message-ID: <uspa8l$7tb3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usks70$1enef$1@i2pn2.org> <usktro$33lov$1@dont-email.me> <usl1c7$1enef$9@i2pn2.org> <usll3l$38f21$1@dont-email.me> <lttHN.366350$q3F7.85039@fx45.iad> <uslou1$390q2$1@dont-email.me> <uslpbr$1enef$17@i2pn2.org> <uslu1i$3do6h$1@dont-email.me> <usm07p$1enef$21@i2pn2.org> <usm1sg$3ebq5$2@dont-email.me> <usmncj$3il8v$1@dont-email.me> <usn5vc$3ltjo$1@dont-email.me> <usn70g$3m5q6$1@dont-email.me> <usn9uk$3m7k2$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2179f33f6702a64110730913db0ce0d";
logging-data="259427"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MNZuV2P0DifV2X7IloOGT"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zIlanSKHb2LO1PbwflVR/9vkzdM=

by: Mikko - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:20 UTC

On 2024-03-11 16:02:28 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/11/2024 10:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 14:54:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/11/2024 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 04:38:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/10/2024 11:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/24 8:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 12:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 10:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 7:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 12:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/24 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 11:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/24 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 02:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 7:32 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 02:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 7:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 01:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 6:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 5:57 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 00:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 5:10 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/03/24 23:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2024 3:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/03/24 22:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What criteria would you use so that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ knows what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer to provide?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to use the exact same objective criteria that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders must make sure that they themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not get stuck in infinite execution. This means that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort every simulation that cannot possibly otherwise halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This requires Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to abort its simulation and does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to abort its simulation when Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does simulate itself in recursive simulation H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not simulate itself in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to use the exact same objective criteria that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Only because Ĥ.H is embedded within Ĥ and H is not*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can possibly get stuck in recursive simulation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly get stuck in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly ignored that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is stipulated to use the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same OBJECTIVE criteria that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is true no matter what criteria that is used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as H is a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objective criteria cannot vary based on who the subject is. They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective. The answer to different people is the same answer if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria are objective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is objectively true that Ĥ.H can get stuck in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation because Ĥ copies its input thus never runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of params.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is objectively true that Ĥ cannot possibly get stuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive because H does not copy its input thus runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of params.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Dead wrong. Stupidly wrong. So wrong that a dead monkey could do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better. Write the Olcott machine (not x86utm) code for Ĥ and I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you are denying these verified facts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you are denying these verified facts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you are denying these verified facts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not a verified fact, that's just something you want to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∞ means infinite loop. Infinite loop doesn't halt. You see how stupid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is, to say that an infinite loop halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution trace of H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ BECAUSE IT IS PRECISELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDENTICAL TO STEPS B AND C:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (c) which begins at Ĥ's own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Yes and the key step of copying its input is left out so*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ runs out of params and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never runs out of params*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't how any of this works. Do you even know what words mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) and (c) are not the same as (1) and (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution trace of H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) which begins at simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that Turing machine H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see one more execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ than its simulated Turing machine Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, your just being stuupid, perhaps intentionally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) just moves around to its simulation of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H^.q0 (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ then makes a copy of its inp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H^.H (H^) (H^) == (1) H (H^) (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The algorithm of H begins a simulation of its input, watching the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaior of H^ (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) = (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which begins at the simulation of H^.q0 (H^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (d = sim a) = (sim a)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ths Simulated H^.q0 (H^) makes a copy of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e = sim b) = (sim b)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Simulated H^.H (H^) (H^) has is H begin the simulation of its input ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both machine see EXACTLY the same level of details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the top level H is farther along at any given time then its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated machine, and that is H's problem, it has to act before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees how its simulation will respond to its copy of its actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if it stops, it needs to make its decision "blind" and not with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an idea of how the machine it is simulating will perform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't stop, the level of recursion just keeps growing and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer ever comes out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The earliest point that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can possibly see to abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation is immediately before Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would begin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation. Right before its cycle repeats the first time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it DOES abort there, then so will H^.H when it gets to that point in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation, which will be AFTER The point that H has stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating it, so H doesn't know what H^ will do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if H DOES abort there, we presume from your previous answer it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will think the input will not halt and answer qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts right after Ĥ.Hq0 before it simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if it does, as I said below, so will H^.H when it is run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, H^.H will give the same answer as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so H^ will act contrary to what H says,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so H will give the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike anything else that anyone else has ever done both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determine that they must abort their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to prevent their own infinite execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOPE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If no source can be cited then the Olcott thesis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "that no one did this before" remains unrefuted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, BY THE DEFINITIONS of what H MUST do to be correct, and what H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WILL do by its design, as shown in the Linz Proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If no source can be cited that shows a simulating halt decider can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determine that it must abort its simulation of the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem's pathological input to prevent its own non-termination, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation remains attributable to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it can abort its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It just needs some way to get the right answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *I have always been using this long before I read about it*
>>>>>>>>>>> blind variation and selective retention (BVSR)...
>>>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if you have mo idea how things actually works, this seems to just
>>>>>>>>>> generate random noise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
>>>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *I am aware of no one else that had the idea to apply a simulating*
>>>>>>>>>>> *termination analyzer to the halting problem counter-example input*
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Hehner had a seed of this idea before I did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, I remember talk of that when I was in college, and they showed
>>>>>>>>>> why it can't work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a
>>>>>>>>>>> program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with that
>>>>>>>>>>> same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting program
>>>>>>>>>>> has some of the same character as an interpreter: it applies to texts
>>>>>>>>>>> through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we apply a halting
>>>>>>>>>>> program to a program text that includes a call to that same halting
>>>>>>>>>>> program with that same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You THINK so, but if the interpreter is a CONDITIONAL interpreter, that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't hold.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to miss that fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Turing Machine and Olcott machine implementations seem to be dead*
>>>>>>>>>>> *This the (possibly augmented) RASP machine equivalent of x86*
>>>>>>>>>>> Every machine must be able to get its own machine address.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the reason it is a dead end is they make it too hard for you to cheat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You need to hide that your H is trying to get in some extra information
>>>>>>>>>> to hide that the embedded version of H doesn't give the same answer,
>>>>>>>>>> which just shows that your H^ is built wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My C code proves these two have different behavior:
>>>>>>>>> (a) H1(D,D) + H1_machine_address
>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) + H_machine_address
>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) does correctly determine the halt status of D(D) because
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) does NOT correctly determine the halt status of D(D).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I say:
>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) is isomorphic to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is isomorphic to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> immibis disagrees.
>>>>>>>>> Correct reasoning will show who is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and since H1 is a different computation than H, it getting the
>>>>>>>> right answer doesn't keep H from being broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can then make a D1 to break H1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that immibis already said that and I did not notice
>>>>>>> the significance of it at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we are back to undecidability being incorrectly construed
>>>>>>> as an actual limit to computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange definition of not an actual limit if not being able to do
>>>>>> something isn't a limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professor's Hehner and Stoddart have only construed this as
>>>>>>> applying to the Halting Problem's pathological input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We three perfectly agree on this as it pertains to the
>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That two full PhD professors of computer science and I all
>>>>>>> agree on this shows that I am not a crackpot/crank on this.
>>>>>>> I think that all of the other options may now be exhausted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am very happy that I quit tolerating the [change the subject]
>>>>>>> form of rebuttal that wasted 15 years with Ben Bacarisse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The focus now must be on finding the best words that prove*
>>>>>>> *this original position of mine (thus the concurring positions*
>>>>>>> *of professors Hehner and Stoddart) is correct*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go knock yourself out on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> > PREMISES:
>>>>>>> > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>>>>>> > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PROBLEM is the question if a machine can compute the Halting Function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer to that, has turned out to be NO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the problem was first being posed, it was hoped the answer woudl
>>>>>> be yes, so it couldn't have bee made specifically to make it impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting QUESTION, has an answer for every input that it the
>>>>>> description of an actual algorithm applied to an actual data input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, Not a "Template" that gets appled to the decider, that IS an
>>>>>> invalid question, and impossible to build a description of a Turing
>>>>>> Machine to ask that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, when you admitted that your input wasn't actually a description
>>>>>> of a program, but just a template, you were admitting that you were
>>>>>> lying about working on the Halting Problem, as your input isn't of the
>>>>>> right type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, asking about a template IS an invalid question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>>>>>> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>>>>>> > …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, when you are asking the actual Halting Question, about a specific
>>>>>> machine and input, like a SPECIFIC H^, built to foil a SPECIIFIC H,
>>>>>> then that input has a specific and definate behavior and there is a
>>>>>> specific and definate answer (That depends on the H that you chose to
>>>>>> build it on, but not the decider you are asking the question to).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>> > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, as explained above. You are just showing that you never
>>>>>> understood the actual question or what any of the theory actually
>>>>>> means, and have just wasted the last decades of your life on a stupid
>>>>>> misconception of your own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Direct Link to original message*
>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>>
>>>>> That YES and NO are the wrong answer for each implementation of
>>>>> Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specified by the second ⊢* state transition proves that the
>>>>> questions asked of these machine/inputs pairs are incorrect questions.
>>>>
>>>> An incorrect answer does not mean that the question is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When every element of the infinite set of every possible
>>> implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer then
>>> there is something wrong with the question.
>>
>> According to the definition by Linz there is only one Ĥ for each H.
>> Anyway, a wrong answer, even if given in large quentities, does
>> not make the question worng.
>
> None-the-less the infinite set of every implementation of
> H/Ĥ.H cannot possibly get an answer that is consistent with
> the behavior of of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<uspm87$afq9$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54752&group=comp.theory#54752

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:44:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <uspm87$afq9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usineq$2hnpb$3@dont-email.me>
<usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me>
<usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me>
<usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me>
<usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me>
<usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me> <usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me>
<usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me> <usn87e$3mas0$1@dont-email.me>
<usn8ct$3m7k2$5@dont-email.me> <usno2e$3q0g4$1@dont-email.me>
<usnoei$3q6km$2@dont-email.me> <usnov7$3q0g4$2@dont-email.me>
<usnp2l$3q6km$4@dont-email.me> <usp8t6$7bir$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:44:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="343881"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196GmN9kRFiW40+i5jRgrcL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cOQ3tgMBQMP8KeEIFt9dI/qFwRg=
In-Reply-To: <usp8t6$7bir$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:44 UTC

On 3/12/2024 4:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
>> On 3/11/2024 3:18 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it
>>>>>>>> sees.
>>>>>>>> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it
>>>>>>>> cannot see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should report on the actual behavior. Not the behavior that it
>>>>>>> sees. If closes its eyes (when aborting), it does not see the
>>>>>>> actual behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is
>>>>>> correct*
>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>> running unless aborted then
>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not talk about simulation where the simulator closes its
>>>>> eyes so that it does not see the actual behavior, but about
>>>>> "correctly simulates" and "correctly determines".
>>>>
>>>> H1(D,D)==1 and H(D,D)==0 are being asked:
>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>>
>>>> As soon as H(D,D) sees that D is calling itself with
>>>> its same input and there are no conditional branch
>>>> instructions inbetween it has its abort criteria.
>>>
>>> So, it closes it eyes and does not see the actual behaviour that H
>>> aborts, so that it halts.
>>
>> Not at all. Nothing like that. Are you a troll?
>
> Please, argue, instead of denying.
> If H would simulate a little bit further it would see the actual
> behavior that D, after the abort, does halt.

Unless the outermost H(D,D) [that sees the longest execution trace]
aborts its simulation as soon as it can then none of them ever abort
their simulation because they all behave the same way.

> By aborting too early it
> misses the actual behavior. So, it misses actual behavior by closing its
> eyes. This is not the "correctly determines" meant by Sipser.
>
Not at all, as explained above.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<uspns4$arno$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54755&group=comp.theory#54755

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: F.Zwa...@HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:12:19 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <uspns4$arno$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me>
<usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me>
<usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me>
<usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me>
<usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
<usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me>
<usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me> <usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me>
<usn87e$3mas0$1@dont-email.me> <usn8ct$3m7k2$5@dont-email.me>
<usno2e$3q0g4$1@dont-email.me> <usnoei$3q6km$2@dont-email.me>
<usnov7$3q0g4$2@dont-email.me> <usnp2l$3q6km$4@dont-email.me>
<usp8t6$7bir$1@dont-email.me> <uspm87$afq9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:12:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b3e1637eb03bc73e971817fdd64a331";
logging-data="356088"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oCOqexsXysOKwmVSaSb9M"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OIBxHLW0fE/vueKS1fgchfk/ARM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <uspm87$afq9$1@dont-email.me>

by: Fred. Zwarts - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:12 UTC

Op 12.mrt.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott:
> On 3/12/2024 4:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/11/2024 3:18 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that
>>>>>>>>> it sees.
>>>>>>>>> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it
>>>>>>>>> cannot see.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It should report on the actual behavior. Not the behavior that
>>>>>>>> it sees. If closes its eyes (when aborting), it does not see the
>>>>>>>> actual behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is
>>>>>>> correct*
>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He does not talk about simulation where the simulator closes its
>>>>>> eyes so that it does not see the actual behavior, but about
>>>>>> "correctly simulates" and "correctly determines".
>>>>>
>>>>> H1(D,D)==1 and H(D,D)==0 are being asked:
>>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as H(D,D) sees that D is calling itself with
>>>>> its same input and there are no conditional branch
>>>>> instructions inbetween it has its abort criteria.
>>>>
>>>> So, it closes it eyes and does not see the actual behaviour that H
>>>> aborts, so that it halts.
>>>
>>> Not at all. Nothing like that. Are you a troll?
>>
>> Please, argue, instead of denying.
>> If H would simulate a little bit further it would see the actual
>> behavior that D, after the abort, does halt.
>
> Unless the outermost H(D,D) [that sees the longest execution trace]
> aborts its simulation as soon as it can then none of them ever abort
> their simulation because they all behave the same way.
>
>> By aborting too early it misses the actual behavior. So, it misses
>> actual behavior by closing its eyes. This is not the "correctly
>> determines" meant by Sipser.
>>
> Not at all, as explained above.

Yes, it must abort, but it must not report not-halting. It does not see
that D does not halt, but it assumes (incorrectly) that D does not halt.
Han(Dan,Dan) should report on its input, Dan, which halts, not on its
non-input Dss, which does not halt.

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<usppvt$b9av$3@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54758&group=comp.theory#54758

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:48:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <usppvt$b9av$3@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me>
<usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me>
<usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me>
<usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me>
<usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskssi$33a1p$4@dont-email.me> <usmpde$3j2lk$1@dont-email.me>
<usn7kr$3m7k2$2@dont-email.me> <usn87e$3mas0$1@dont-email.me>
<usn8ct$3m7k2$5@dont-email.me> <usno2e$3q0g4$1@dont-email.me>
<usnoei$3q6km$2@dont-email.me> <usnov7$3q0g4$2@dont-email.me>
<usnp2l$3q6km$4@dont-email.me> <usp8t6$7bir$1@dont-email.me>
<uspm87$afq9$1@dont-email.me> <uspns4$arno$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:48:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="370015"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AtxU9Ne5sfDPPS+Ynclow"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kp3JMO35Kn7GufZFm3yAZ76hX8s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uspns4$arno$1@dont-email.me>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:48 UTC

On 3/12/2024 9:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 12.mrt.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott:
>> On 3/12/2024 4:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 3:18 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 10:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 11.mrt.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that
>>>>>>>>>> it sees.
>>>>>>>>>> It is incorrect to expect it to report on behavior that it
>>>>>>>>>> cannot see.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It should report on the actual behavior. Not the behavior that
>>>>>>>>> it sees. If closes its eyes (when aborting), it does not see
>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is
>>>>>>>> correct*
>>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He does not talk about simulation where the simulator closes its
>>>>>>> eyes so that it does not see the actual behavior, but about
>>>>>>> "correctly simulates" and "correctly determines".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H1(D,D)==1 and H(D,D)==0 are being asked:
>>>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As soon as H(D,D) sees that D is calling itself with
>>>>>> its same input and there are no conditional branch
>>>>>> instructions inbetween it has its abort criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it closes it eyes and does not see the actual behaviour that H
>>>>> aborts, so that it halts.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Nothing like that. Are you a troll?
>>>
>>> Please, argue, instead of denying.
>>> If H would simulate a little bit further it would see the actual
>>> behavior that D, after the abort, does halt.
>>
>> Unless the outermost H(D,D) [that sees the longest execution trace]
>> aborts its simulation as soon as it can then none of them ever abort
>> their simulation because they all behave the same way.
>>
>>> By aborting too early it misses the actual behavior. So, it misses
>>> actual behavior by closing its eyes. This is not the "correctly
>>> determines" meant by Sipser.
>>>
>> Not at all, as explained above.
>
> Yes, it must abort, but it must not report not-halting. It does not see
> that D does not halt, but it assumes (incorrectly) that D does not halt.
> Han(Dan,Dan) should report on its input, Dan, which halts, not on its
> non-input Dss, which does not halt.
>

It does correctly answer NO to this question:
Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
That exactly matches the Professor approved words.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54760&group=comp.theory#54760

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:03:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <uspqr9$b9av$5@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me>
<usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me>
<usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me>
<usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
<usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
<usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
<usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
<usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
<KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
<uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
<usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me> <usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me>
<usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me> <uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me>
<IEtHN.366351$q3F7.176464@fx45.iad> <uslqr6$3d3q7$1@dont-email.me>
<usmoil$3it71$1@dont-email.me> <usn7an$3m7k2$1@dont-email.me>
<usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:03:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="370015"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HFat5A3J0KQKU9O8NBgTY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vBuj3W8S9eqTXhVomhJA4ORClvE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usp75t$77jt$1@dont-email.me>

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:03 UTC

On 3/12/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 15:17:42 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/11/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-11 02:38:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as
>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO,
>>>>>>>>>>> so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are
>>>>>>>>> valid or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair
>>>>>>> defines an execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or
>>>>>>> infinite. Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you remember that when we posse that ACTUAL question, the
>>>>> input is a FIXED machine, (not a template that changes by the
>>>>> decide that it trying to decide it) then there are a LOT of
>>>>> machines that get the right answer. The key is we know that there
>>>>> is ONE that doesn't, the one that particular decider was built to
>>>>> foil. Thus, the problem isn't an invalid question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory,
>>>> an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is
>>>> proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always
>>>> leads to a correct yes-or-no answer.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>
>>>> If the only reason that a machine does not get a correct yes/no answer
>>>> for this machine/input pair is that both yes and no are the wrong
>>>> answer
>>>> for this machine/input pair then this machine/input pair is a yes/no
>>>> question that has no correct yes/no answer for this machine/input pair.
>>>>
>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>> Are you a little girl?
>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>
>>> It is semantically different question as the meaning of "you" varies.
>> Exactly my point.
>>
>>> Teh interpretations of "little" and "girl" may vary, too.
>>>
>>>> The exact same word-for-word question:
>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>> Has a different meaning depending on who is asked.
>>>
>>> Likewise, because of "you".
>> Exactly my point.
>>
>>> Also depens on when it is asked
>>> if the input is replaced. And can be an incorrect question
>>> if the input or the input of the input does not exist or
>>> the input is something that cannot be said to "halt" (e.g.,
>>> a number).
>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>>>
>>>> When every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is asked this question:
>>>> Does your input halt on its input?
>>>> It is an incorrect question.
>>>
>>> Yes, so no need say anything about it. A correct question
>>> is "Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?".
>>>
>>
>> Is a subjective specification because the behavior depends on
>> the agent that performs it.
>
> The specified behaviour of halting decider does not.
>

Because the specification of a the halting problem allows pathological
inputs this proves that this specification is subjective[Hehner].

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees

<uspr2a$b9av$6@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=54761&group=comp.theory#54761

copy link Newsgroups: comp.theory

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct when re
ports_on_the_actual_behavior_that_it_sees
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:06:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <uspr2a$b9av$6@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me>
<usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me>
<usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me>
<usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me>
<usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
<usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
<usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
<usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
<usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
<uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
<uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
<uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me>
<uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0hh$34290$3@dont-email.me>
<usl0v5$347rv$2@dont-email.me> <usljui$385q4$2@dont-email.me>
<uslmh7$38jtu$2@dont-email.me> <usmo12$3io83$2@dont-email.me>
<usn6l2$3ltl1$3@dont-email.me> <usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:06:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2de151991156ec4f63802e311fdc7732";
logging-data="370015"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dx+hkErRzlv97a4kL4bPj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tGKprr0qtfbxYQm2k7Xnor8Xg90=
In-Reply-To: <usp7en$7a3k$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:06 UTC

On 3/12/2024 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 15:06:10 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/11/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-11 01:24:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/10/2024 7:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/24 20:16, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:09 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing
>>>>>>>>> machines?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so
>>>>>>>>> you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all decision problems are defined so that all instances are valid
>>>>>>> or else they are not defined properly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the case of Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now we are back to: Every Turing machine and input pair defines
>>>>> an execution sequence. Every sequence is either finite or infinite.
>>>>> Therefore it is well-defined and there is no paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you show me a Turing machine that specifies a sequence of
>>>>> configurations that is not finite or infinite?
>>>>
>>>> When we construe every yes/no question that cannot possibly
>>>> have a correct yes/no answer as an incorrect question
>>>>
>>>> then we must correspondingly construe every decider/input
>>>> pair that has no correct yes/no answer as invalid input.
>>>
>>> Apparently the answer is "no" as no such Turing machine is shown
>>> or mentioned above.
>>>
>>
>> *Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
>> This proves that there is something wrong with the question.
>
> No, it doesn't. It proves that there is something wrong with
> every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. Whenever Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets
> the wrong answer the other answer is right.
>

*Your reasoning is just like this reasoning*
"This sentence is not true." is not true and that makes it true.
You are stopping right there and not seeing the infinite cycle.

*Please see my new post for a complete elaboration of this*
[Proving my 2004 claim that some decider/input pairs are incorrect
questions]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

devel / comp.theory / Re: Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior ZFC --new focus--

Pages:1 2 3 4 5 6 789 10 11 12 13

server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor