Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Xerox never comes up with anything original.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
+* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
| `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|      +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Don Stockbauer
|      |`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]( applicationolcott
|      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|       +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|         `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|          `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|           `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|            `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|              `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|               `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|                `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|                 `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|                  `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
 `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
         `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          +- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          |`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          | `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
          `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
           `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
            `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
             +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |`* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             | `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |  `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |   `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |    `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |     `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |      `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |       `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |        `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             |         `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](olcott
             `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
              +* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
              |`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
              `* Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
               `- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott

Pages:123
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7878&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7878

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 06:37:13 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 06:37:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<l4bOJ.5973$kuda.550@fx12.iad>
<8KSdnRooMaz5wpT_nZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DodOJ.37047$Lbb6.31741@fx45.iad>
<aP6dndDBnacS-pT_nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4veOJ.35906$Y1A7.8248@fx43.iad>
<As2dnSSEINq06pT_nZ2dnUU7-eednZ2d@giganews.com>
<wVeOJ.35102$41E7.19078@fx37.iad>
<A-CdnSMdYfQZHZT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hmfOJ.40926$Wdl5.7730@fx44.iad>
<L8qdnc1PnZ_-EpT_nZ2dnUU7-RWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%ihOJ.13496$GjY3.10711@fx01.iad>
<ZcGdnXE1gbY6PJT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<geiOJ.14278$jwf9.6136@fx24.iad>
<BtednRZDAaNQUZT_nZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ClrOJ.19559$dln7.7346@fx03.iad> <suglil$dkp$1@dont-email.me>
<9SWOJ.25849$OT%7.13821@fx07.iad>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 573
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1ZCVKVXb2BQIV8B2FjzpzCjKu2t0PYgrwCmwC7VzLbTWh+0bUfCJutetDlB2Bm4t03Xk1Xq6y+490Y7!/tgYCt3Dg2TDtYve0/AO7st1sN/hD41p8WtkXNSEnDo8+RyIm/EoHDoEbafnYqX6dzxxdLn4Z+UE
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 35162
 by: olcott - Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:37 UTC

On 2/15/2022 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/15/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/15/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/15/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2022 5:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 1:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 5:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 5:39 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:41 AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:49 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 10:50 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 11:36 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:58 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:52 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:17 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:10 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 10:20 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 11:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 10:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 6:02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 9:18
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > I explain how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you CLAIM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, but use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS PROVEN TO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE ENTIRELY ON
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE BASIS OF THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANING OF ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORDS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input then it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF it correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided, then yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown, by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method of H^ that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qn and Halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM, then we also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have that UTM <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> will halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (we only look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU qre confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the definioon of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to build H^,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H MUST be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H must have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to its Ĥ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state and H is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to have such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a loop appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its H.qy state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is OUTSIDE the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm of H itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and doesn't affect the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding to go from Q0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Qy/Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider bases it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status decision on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H can change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior. A string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and embedded_H yields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it can't, not and be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, so you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation means for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL copoies, Same input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to Same Output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an exact copy makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it IS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not determine that itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being called multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times with the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H does determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that itself is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strcmp(H, embedded_H != 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'representation' of itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use to make that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison, so that is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of your Fairy Dust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Powered Unicorn stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can very easily have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation of itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that only requires that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has access to its own machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Turing Machines DON'T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have access to their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description, unless it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been provided as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that this was impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are agreeing that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't? Or do you just not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am agreeing that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How, by saying that the only way a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine can have a copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its representation is for it to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given (and H is defined in a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it can't be given as an extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop making H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the infinite loop isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the copy of H in H^, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something ADD to it, which only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has/affects behavior AFTER H makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another words hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples get you so confused you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally lose track of everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What 'Hypothetical' are you referencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean when I say that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardly pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the hypothetical that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop making H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating its infinite loop, I probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean: {I redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating its infinite loop}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does what? Since if you aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about Linz's H^, your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't mean anything for the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It provides a bridge of understanding to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HP refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key skill that I have applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout my career is eliminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inessential complexity" (1999 Turing award
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winner Fred Brooks) to make   enormously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult problems as simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you eliminate KEY ASPECTS then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't talking about what you need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like learning arithmetic before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacking algebra.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It lays the foundation of prerequisites for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my actual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just beware that if you make a statement that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only true for a limited case and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly state so, pointing that out is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 'Dishonest Dodge'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is know that you are working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to prove that a Unicorn exists, what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are saying WILL be looked at in a light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anticipating where you are going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also remember that showing a rule happens to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be correct for one case, doesn't prove that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be for a different case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have gone through all of this before, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it came for nothing, but if this is how you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to spend your last days, knock yourself out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you already understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // this path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is never taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩ an equivalent computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as seems common with your arguments, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep on forgetting the CONDITIONS on each line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.q0 <H^> -> H^.Qx <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qy -> ∞ IF and only if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn If and ohly if H <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> => H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you stipulate that H <H^> <H^> will never go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qy, then the behavior on that path can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed with no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the If and only if clauses, the initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description is incorrect because it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT H won't go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for either version, then changing H^ to the H"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that omits to loop is an equivalence, but ONLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under that stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This of course shows that H will be wrong about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H", as H" will ALWAYS Halt if H answers, and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not answering is always wrong. Thus H will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either be wrong for not answering or giving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only making two versions of input to H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Ĥ WITH an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Ḧ WITHOUT an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only this is being examined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the conclusion that H" is 'equivalent'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H^ is only true (if you mean equivalent in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense that they compute the same function) if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the case that neither of H <H^> <H^> or H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> go to H.Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you want to indicate some other definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 'equivalent' you using (that could be proper to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so here), you need to include the conditions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under which the statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, embedded_H / H need to transition to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state in H, not some other machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as we append an infinite loop to H.y is it no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where you are showing your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE has said that the machine where we added the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop is still the machine H, in fact, Linz calls that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine H', but H' CONTAINS a complete copy of H, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that copy will still act exactly like the original H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the point where it gets to the stat Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This ability to compose machines of copies of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines is basically like the concept of calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subroutines (even if it is implemented differently)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is fundamental to the design and analysis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Macines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have a problem saying the subroutine H is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer the subroutine H if one function just calls H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and returns while a second calls H and conditionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops? Yes, the whole program is not H, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subroutine H is still there and will behave exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it used to in both of the cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to map a Turing Machine to ordinary software
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to think of the Q0 state (or whatever is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'starting' state of the Turing machine) as the entry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point for the function, and the Halting States of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine as retrun stateents which return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value indicating what state the machine ended in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the modifications Linz has done to H are nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more that building H^ as mostly a call to H, with code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the call to manipulate the tape to add the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second copy, and code after the return to loop forever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H returns the 'Halting' answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine/Subroutine H has not been touched at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is equivalent to Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And my point is that they are only equivalent in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal sense of the word if neither of H <H^> <H^> and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without that qualification, it is a false statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are equivalent in that neither can possibly go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their q.y state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is incorrect without the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification/assumption/stipulation, the H doesn't go to Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H was a white cat detector and you presented H with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> black cat would it say "yes" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't talking about a 'detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know what you are talking about (and showing
>>>>>>>>>> your dishonesty by your clipping).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THe claim that H^ and H" are equivilent machines has NOTHING
>>>>>>>>>> to do with there being a 'Detector' but do they behave exactly
>>>>>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are disavowing that both ⟨Ĥ⟩ and ⟨Ḧ⟩ have
>>>>>>>>> a copy of H embedded within them ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A halt detector is the same idea as a halt decider yet a halt
>>>>>>>>> detector need not get every input correctly. Every input that
>>>>>>>>> the halt detector gets correctly is in the domain of the
>>>>>>>>> computable function that it implements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, they have a copy of the Halt Detector H in them, and unless
>>>>>>>> you are willing to stipulate that H will not go to H.Qy when
>>>>>>>> given H^ or H" as an input, then you can not show that those
>>>>>>>> machines are equivalent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the simulating halt decider H cannot possibly go to H.qy on a
>>>>>>> specific input then any such stipulation would be redundant for
>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why do you resist it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is wrong with stipulating as a requirement something you
>>>>>> 'know' to be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason I can see for you to object to listing that
>>>>>> requirement. is that at some point you are going to want to
>>>>>> violate that requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically because it was redundant.
>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not take a genius to know that when
>>>>> embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qn
>>>>     embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qy
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, are you stating as a fact that embedded_H <H^> <H^> and
>>> embedded_H <H"> <H"> both as a matter of DEFINITION go to H.Qn?
>>>
>>
>> For H to be correct then on the above specified inputs they must both
>> go to H.qn.
>>
>>
>
> But, by DEFINITION that is the WRONG answer.
>
> DEFINITION of a Correct Halt Decider:
>
> A) H <M> w goes to H.Qy if M w Halts, and to H.Qn if M w never Halts.
I am only talking about these two:
embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7879&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7879

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:12:25 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:12:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<As2dnSSEINq06pT_nZ2dnUU7-eednZ2d@giganews.com>
<wVeOJ.35102$41E7.19078@fx37.iad>
<A-CdnSMdYfQZHZT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hmfOJ.40926$Wdl5.7730@fx44.iad>
<L8qdnc1PnZ_-EpT_nZ2dnUU7-RWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%ihOJ.13496$GjY3.10711@fx01.iad>
<ZcGdnXE1gbY6PJT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<geiOJ.14278$jwf9.6136@fx24.iad>
<BtednRZDAaNQUZT_nZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ClrOJ.19559$dln7.7346@fx03.iad> <suglil$dkp$1@dont-email.me>
<9SWOJ.25849$OT%7.13821@fx07.iad>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 651
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HiYUgsacnJL0+ieCtfZXgbo8+5wiI9rE8J0AlQiY3T0oRIi7uezpQuq0G2c1VxdvzPAdB0C76JUvVEJ!m4dOG1tGhLQqxwx6rjuaFFD7HfHa9WC/DbzHIhU8tg8H1nJZUdonGy3icI8O8PnjFKO/CcbBEwYX
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 41090
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:12 UTC

On 2/16/2022 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/22 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/22 7:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2022 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2022 5:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 1:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 5:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:57 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 5:39 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:41 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:49 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 12:01 AM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 10:50 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 11:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:17 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:10 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 10:20 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 11:39
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 10:58
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:02 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:18 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > I explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you CLAIM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, but use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVEN TO BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE ENTIRELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ON THE BASIS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANING OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITS WORDS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been shown, by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method of H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if H <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn then H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a UTM, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also have that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ (we only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU qre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the definioon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how to build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^, embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST be EXACTLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its Ĥ.qy state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and H is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qy state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is OUTSIDE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the algorithm of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't affect the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Q0 to Qy/Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider bases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision on whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same inputs the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. A string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yields false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it can't, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be a COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ALL copoies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same input leads to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same Output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an exact copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it IS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is being called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input. embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strcmp(H, embedded_H != 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'representation' of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself to use to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that comparison, so that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just more of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fairy Dust Powered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unicorn stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can very easily have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation of itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that only requires that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has access to its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DON'T have access to their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own machine description,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless it has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that this was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are agreeing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can't? Or do you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am agreeing that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How, by saying that the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way a Turing Machine can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of its representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is for it to be given (and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is defined in a way that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be given as an extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making H and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't part of the copy of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^, it is something ADD to it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which only has/affects behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER H makes its decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another words hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples get you so confused you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally lose track of everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What 'Hypothetical' are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean when I say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you hardly pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the hypothetical that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop making H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating its infinite loop, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably mean: {I redefine Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become Ḧ by eliminating its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does what? Since if you aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about Linz's H^, your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't mean anything for the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It provides a bridge of understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to my HP refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key skill that I have applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout my career is eliminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inessential complexity" (1999 Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> award winner Fred Brooks) to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   enormously difficult problems as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you eliminate KEY ASPECTS then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you aren't talking about what you need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like learning arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before attacking algebra.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It lays the foundation of prerequisites
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for my actual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just beware that if you make a statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is only true for a limited case and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't explicitly state so, pointing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out is NOT a 'Dishonest Dodge'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is know that you are working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to prove that a Unicorn exists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are saying WILL be looked at in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light anticipating where you are going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also remember that showing a rule happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be correct for one case, doesn't prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will be for a different case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have gone through all of this before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it came for nothing, but if this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how you want to spend your last days,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knock yourself out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you already understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path is never taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩ an equivalent computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as seems common with your arguments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you keep on forgetting the CONDITIONS on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.q0 <H^> -> H^.Qx <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qy -> ∞ IF and only if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn If and ohly if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> <H^> => H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you stipulate that H <H^> <H^> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H.Qy, then the behavior on that path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be changed with no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the If and only if clauses, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial description is incorrect because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT H won't go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qy for either version, then changing H^ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H" that omits to loop is an equivalence,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but ONLY under that stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This of course shows that H will be wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about H", as H" will ALWAYS Halt if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, and H not answering is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Thus H will either be wrong for not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering or giving the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only making two versions of input to H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Ĥ WITH an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Ḧ WITHOUT an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only this is being examined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the conclusion that H" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equivalent' to H^ is only true (if you mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent in the sense that they compute the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same function) if it is the case that neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H <H^> <H^> or H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you want to indicate some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of 'equivalent' you using (that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be proper to do so here), you need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the conditions under which the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, embedded_H / H need to transition to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state in H, not some other machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as we append an infinite loop to H.y is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it no longer H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where you are showing your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE has said that the machine where we added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the loop is still the machine H, in fact, Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls that machine H', but H' CONTAINS a complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of H, and that copy will still act exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the original H to the point where it gets to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stat Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This ability to compose machines of copies of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other machines is basically like the concept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling subroutines (even if it is implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differently) and is fundamental to the design and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of Turing Macines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have a problem saying the subroutine H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no longer the subroutine H if one function just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H and returns while a second calls H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditionally loops? Yes, the whole program is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H, but the subroutine H is still there and will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave exactly like it used to in both of the cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to map a Turing Machine to ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software is to think of the Q0 state (or whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the 'starting' state of the Turing machine) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entry point for the function, and the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States of the Turing Machine as retrun stateents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which return a value indicating what state the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine ended in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the modifications Linz has done to H are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more that building H^ as mostly a call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H, with code before the call to manipulate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape to add the second copy, and code after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return to loop forever if H returns the 'Halting'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine/Subroutine H has not been touched at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is equivalent to Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And my point is that they are only equivalent in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal sense of the word if neither of H <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without that qualification, it is a false statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are equivalent in that neither can possibly go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their q.y state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is incorrect without the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification/assumption/stipulation, the H doesn't go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H was a white cat detector and you presented H with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a black cat would it say "yes" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't talking about a 'detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know what you are talking about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing your dishonesty by your clipping).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THe claim that H^ and H" are equivilent machines has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTHING to do with there being a 'Detector' but do they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave exactly the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are disavowing that both ⟨Ĥ⟩ and ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a copy of H embedded within them ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt detector is the same idea as a halt decider yet a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt detector need not get every input correctly. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that the halt detector gets correctly is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of the computable function that it implements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they have a copy of the Halt Detector H in them, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you are willing to stipulate that H will not go to
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qy when given H^ or H" as an input, then you can not show
>>>>>>>>>>>> that those machines are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulating halt decider H cannot possibly go to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> on a specific input then any such stipulation would be
>>>>>>>>>>> redundant for this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So why do you resist it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with stipulating as a requirement something you
>>>>>>>>>> 'know' to be true?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason I can see for you to object to listing that
>>>>>>>>>> requirement. is that at some point you are going to want to
>>>>>>>>>> violate that requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Specifically because it was redundant.
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not take a genius to know that when
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qn
>>>>>>>>     embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, are you stating as a fact that embedded_H <H^> <H^> and
>>>>>>> embedded_H <H"> <H"> both as a matter of DEFINITION go to H.Qn?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For H to be correct then on the above specified inputs they must
>>>>>> both go to H.qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by DEFINITION that is the WRONG answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> DEFINITION of a Correct Halt Decider:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) H <M> w goes to H.Qy if M w Halts, and to H.Qn if M w never Halts.
>>>> I am only talking about these two:
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> Whenever any embedded_H must abort the simulation of its input to
>>>> prevent the infinitely nested simulation of this input the entire
>>>> nested simulation sequence specifies infinitely nested simulation.
>>>> This makes a transition to H.qn necessarily correct in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, the NESTED simulation, but NOT the H^ / H" that is USING that
>>> embededeed_H, and it is THAT machine that defines the CORRECT answer
>>> for H.
>>>
>>
>> That problem is that you are flat out wrong about this.
>> embedded_H IS NOT REPORTING ON ITS OWN BEHAVIOR
>> THUS NOT REPORTING ON Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>
> Then it is NOT a Halt Detector. PERIOD. BY DEFINITON.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7880&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7880

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:17:47 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:17:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<A-CdnSMdYfQZHZT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hmfOJ.40926$Wdl5.7730@fx44.iad>
<L8qdnc1PnZ_-EpT_nZ2dnUU7-RWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%ihOJ.13496$GjY3.10711@fx01.iad>
<ZcGdnXE1gbY6PJT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<geiOJ.14278$jwf9.6136@fx24.iad>
<BtednRZDAaNQUZT_nZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ClrOJ.19559$dln7.7346@fx03.iad> <suglil$dkp$1@dont-email.me>
<9SWOJ.25849$OT%7.13821@fx07.iad>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 707
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8e59AfrWUVvftUNH8S6mDdsF3FeJBjsfdET5I6NHCrvNmCfQOEj1M+LzOBEILmNJ/bkSnpX3J+P26f5!x76wDiCOu5x2tsgHzDGUQf8EA6y48R2Ne2L6+b0QOhkwlJXa4mVJfhTtbespY9paGfpU1UikJzbm
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 45201
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:17 UTC

On 2/16/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/22 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/22 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/22 7:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2022 5:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 1:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 5:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:57 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:25 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 5:39 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:41 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:08 AM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:49 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 12:01 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 10:50 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 11:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:17 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:10 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 10:20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 11:39
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:02 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:18 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLAIM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVEN TO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY ON
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE BASIS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANING OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITS WORDS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been shown,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method of H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H^ <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a UTM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> will halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU qre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definioon of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^, embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qy state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is OUTSIDE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the algorithm of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H itself, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H in deciding to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go from Q0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qy/Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider bases it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string comparison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yields false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it can't, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be a COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ALL copoies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same input leads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Same Output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an exact copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it IS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that itself is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called multiple times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strcmp(H, embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> != 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'representation' of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself to use to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that comparison, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is just more of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your Fairy Dust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Powered Unicorn stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can very easily have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a representation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, that only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires that it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DON'T have access to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description, unless it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been provided as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that this was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are agreeing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can't? Or do you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am agreeing that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How, by saying that the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way a Turing Machine can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a copy of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation is for it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be given (and H is defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a way that it can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given as an extra input)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making H and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't part of the copy of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^, it is something ADD to it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which only has/affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior AFTER H makes its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another words hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples get you so confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you totally lose track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What 'Hypothetical' are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean when I say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you hardly pay any attention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the hypothetical that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am referencing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating its infinite loop, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably mean: {I redefine Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become Ḧ by eliminating its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does what? Since if you aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about Linz's H^, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results don't mean anything for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It provides a bridge of understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to my HP refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key skill that I have applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout my career is eliminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inessential complexity" (1999 Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> award winner Fred Brooks) to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   enormously difficult problems as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you eliminate KEY ASPECTS then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you aren't talking about what you need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like learning arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before attacking algebra.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It lays the foundation of prerequisites
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for my actual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just beware that if you make a statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is only true for a limited case and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't explicitly state so, pointing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out is NOT a 'Dishonest Dodge'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is know that you are working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to prove that a Unicorn exists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are saying WILL be looked at in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a light anticipating where you are going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also remember that showing a rule
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be correct for one case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove that it will be for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have gone through all of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before, and it came for nothing, but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is how you want to spend your last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days, knock yourself out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you already understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this path is never taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩ an equivalent computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as seems common with your arguments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you keep on forgetting the CONDITIONS on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.q0 <H^> -> H^.Qx <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qy -> ∞ IF and only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn If and ohly if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> <H^> => H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you stipulate that H <H^> <H^> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never go to H.Qy, then the behavior on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that path can be changed with no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the If and only if clauses, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial description is incorrect because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT H won't go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qy for either version, then changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ to the H" that omits to loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence, but ONLY under that stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This of course shows that H will be wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about H", as H" will ALWAYS Halt if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, and H not answering is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Thus H will either be wrong for not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering or giving the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only making two versions of input to H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Ĥ WITH an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Ḧ WITHOUT an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only this is being examined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the conclusion that H" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equivalent' to H^ is only true (if you mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent in the sense that they compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same function) if it is the case that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither of H <H^> <H^> or H <H"> <H"> go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you want to indicate some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of 'equivalent' you using (that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be proper to do so here), you need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the conditions under which the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, embedded_H / H need to transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state in H, not some other machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as we append an infinite loop to H.y is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it no longer H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where you are showing your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE has said that the machine where we added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the loop is still the machine H, in fact, Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls that machine H', but H' CONTAINS a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete copy of H, and that copy will still act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly like the original H to the point where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it gets to the stat Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This ability to compose machines of copies of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other machines is basically like the concept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling subroutines (even if it is implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differently) and is fundamental to the design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and analysis of Turing Macines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have a problem saying the subroutine H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no longer the subroutine H if one function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just calls H and returns while a second calls H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conditionally loops? Yes, the whole program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not H, but the subroutine H is still there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will behave exactly like it used to in both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to map a Turing Machine to ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software is to think of the Q0 state (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is the 'starting' state of the Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine) as the entry point for the function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Halting States of the Turing Machine as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retrun stateents which return a value indicating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what state the machine ended in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the modifications Linz has done to H are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more that building H^ as mostly a call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H, with code before the call to manipulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tape to add the second copy, and code after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the return to loop forever if H returns the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Halting' answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine/Subroutine H has not been touched at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is equivalent to Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And my point is that they are only equivalent in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the normal sense of the word if neither of H <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> and H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without that qualification, it is a false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are equivalent in that neither can possibly go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their q.y state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is incorrect without the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification/assumption/stipulation, the H doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H was a white cat detector and you presented H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a black cat would it say "yes" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't talking about a 'detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know what you are talking about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing your dishonesty by your clipping).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THe claim that H^ and H" are equivilent machines has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTHING to do with there being a 'Detector' but do they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave exactly the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are disavowing that both ⟨Ĥ⟩ and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ḧ⟩ have a copy of H embedded within them ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt detector is the same idea as a halt decider yet a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt detector need not get every input correctly. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that the halt detector gets correctly is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of the computable function that it implements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they have a copy of the Halt Detector H in them, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you are willing to stipulate that H will not go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qy when given H^ or H" as an input, then you can not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that those machines are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulating halt decider H cannot possibly go to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a specific input then any such stipulation would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> redundant for this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So why do you resist it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with stipulating as a requirement something
>>>>>>>>>>>> you 'know' to be true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason I can see for you to object to listing that
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. is that at some point you are going to want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> violate that requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically because it was redundant.
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not take a genius to know that when
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>     embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, are you stating as a fact that embedded_H <H^> <H^> and
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H <H"> <H"> both as a matter of DEFINITION go to H.Qn?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For H to be correct then on the above specified inputs they must
>>>>>>>> both go to H.qn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, by DEFINITION that is the WRONG answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DEFINITION of a Correct Halt Decider:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) H <M> w goes to H.Qy if M w Halts, and to H.Qn if M w never
>>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>> I am only talking about these two:
>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whenever any embedded_H must abort the simulation of its input to
>>>>>> prevent the infinitely nested simulation of this input the entire
>>>>>> nested simulation sequence specifies infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>> This makes a transition to H.qn necessarily correct in this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, the NESTED simulation, but NOT the H^ / H" that is USING
>>>>> that embededeed_H, and it is THAT machine that defines the CORRECT
>>>>> answer for H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That problem is that you are flat out wrong about this.
>>>> embedded_H IS NOT REPORTING ON ITS OWN BEHAVIOR
>>>> THUS NOT REPORTING ON Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then it is NOT a Halt Detector. PERIOD. BY DEFINITON.
>>
>> Not at all. The only thing that it proves is that you persistently
>> fail to understand that all deciders are only accountable for their
>> actual inputs. int Sum(3,5) is not accountable for Sum(7,3).
>>
>
> And you don't understand that the 'behavior of its input' is what the
> machine its input represents would do with the input provided.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7881&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7881

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:10:54 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:10:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZcGdnXE1gbY6PJT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<geiOJ.14278$jwf9.6136@fx24.iad>
<BtednRZDAaNQUZT_nZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ClrOJ.19559$dln7.7346@fx03.iad> <suglil$dkp$1@dont-email.me>
<9SWOJ.25849$OT%7.13821@fx07.iad>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 836
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qcjijERRmBfq2uG1R1APE3sHfAMBDZCYk0Ok40qKXyvXgAltqhIaYv7qpgQytRggrb2JHz+9roCrnm3!sbDe8tXvtKZfMY0VBVKO3b4UhhOuVA1zA8qBftxKtLHUMjVG8y9eM3UlGdR7fFEIdXHb5Q0S4G6c
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 54668
X-Received-Bytes: 54850
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 03:10 UTC

On 2/16/2022 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/22 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 7:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2022 5:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 1:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 11:19 AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 5:43 AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:22 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 7:54 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:57 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:25 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 6:48 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 5:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 5:34 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:41 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:08 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:49 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 12:01 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 10:50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 11:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:58
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:52
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:36 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:02 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:18 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLAIM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY ON
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORDS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly decided,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ (we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qre confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definioon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build H^,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its Ĥ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUTSIDE the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go from Q0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Qy/Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bases it halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yields false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it can't,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not and be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means for ALL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copoies, Same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input leads to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same Output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it IS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strcmp(H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H != 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H does't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'representation'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of itself to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is just more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your Fairy Dust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Powered Unicorn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can very easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, that only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has access to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machines DON'T have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless it has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are agreeing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can't? Or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am agreeing that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How, by saying that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only way a Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine can have a copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its representation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it to be given (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is defined in a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it can't be given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an extra input)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making H and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop isn't part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of H in H^, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something ADD to it, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only has/affects behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER H makes its decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical examples get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you so confused you totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lose track of everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What 'Hypothetical' are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that you hardly pay any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the hypothetical that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referencing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making H and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by eliminating its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop, I probably mean: {I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating its infinite loop}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does what? Since if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't talking about Linz's H^,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your results don't mean anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It provides a bridge of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding to my HP refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key skill that I have applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout my career is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating "inessential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity" (1999 Turing award
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winner Fred Brooks) to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   enormously difficult problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you eliminate KEY ASPECTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you aren't talking about what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like learning arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before attacking algebra.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It lays the foundation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prerequisites for my actual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just beware that if you make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement that is only true for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited case and don't explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state so, pointing that out is NOT a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Dishonest Dodge'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is know that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working on trying to prove that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unicorn exists, what you are saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WILL be looked at in a light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anticipating where you are going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also remember that showing a rule
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be correct for one case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove that it will be for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have gone through all of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before, and it came for nothing, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if this is how you want to spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your last days, knock yourself out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you already understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this path is never taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩ an equivalent computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as seems common with your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, you keep on forgetting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONDITIONS on each line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.q0 <H^> -> H^.Qx <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qy -> ∞ IF and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn If and ohly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H <H^> <H^> => H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you stipulate that H <H^> <H^> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never go to H.Qy, then the behavior on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that path can be changed with no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the If and only if clauses,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the initial description is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT H won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H.Qy for either version, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing H^ to the H" that omits to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop is an equivalence, but ONLY under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This of course shows that H will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong about H", as H" will ALWAYS Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H answers, and H not answering is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always wrong. Thus H will either be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong for not answering or giving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only making two versions of input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Ĥ WITH an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Ḧ WITHOUT an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only this is being examined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the conclusion that H" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equivalent' to H^ is only true (if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean equivalent in the sense that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the same function) if it is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case that neither of H <H^> <H^> or H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you want to indicate some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of 'equivalent' you using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that could be proper to do so here),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to include the conditions under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, embedded_H / H need to transition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a state in H, not some other machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as we append an infinite loop to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.y is it no longer H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where you are showing your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE has said that the machine where we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added the loop is still the machine H, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, Linz calls that machine H', but H'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONTAINS a complete copy of H, and that copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will still act exactly like the original H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the point where it gets to the stat Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This ability to compose machines of copies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other machines is basically like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of calling subroutines (even if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is implemented differently) and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental to the design and analysis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Macines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have a problem saying the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subroutine H is no longer the subroutine H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one function just calls H and returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while a second calls H and conditionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops? Yes, the whole program is not H, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subroutine H is still there and will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave exactly like it used to in both of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to map a Turing Machine to ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software is to think of the Q0 state (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever is the 'starting' state of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine) as the entry point for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function, and the Halting States of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine as retrun stateents which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return a value indicating what state the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine ended in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the modifications Linz has done to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are nothing more that building H^ as mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a call to H, with code before the call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulate the tape to add the second copy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and code after the return to loop forever if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H returns the 'Halting' answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine/Subroutine H has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touched at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is equivalent to Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And my point is that they are only equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the normal sense of the word if neither of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H^> <H^> and H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without that qualification, it is a false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are equivalent in that neither can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly go to their q.y state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is incorrect without the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification/assumption/stipulation, the H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't go to Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H was a white cat detector and you presented H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a black cat would it say "yes" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't talking about a 'detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know what you are talking about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing your dishonesty by your clipping).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THe claim that H^ and H" are equivilent machines has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTHING to do with there being a 'Detector' but do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they behave exactly the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are disavowing that both ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ⟨Ḧ⟩ have a copy of H embedded within them ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt detector is the same idea as a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet a halt detector need not get every input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. Every input that the halt detector gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly is in the domain of the computable function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it implements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they have a copy of the Halt Detector H in them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and unless you are willing to stipulate that H will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not go to H.Qy when given H^ or H" as an input, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can not show that those machines are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulating halt decider H cannot possibly go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qy on a specific input then any such stipulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be redundant for this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why do you resist it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with stipulating as a requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something you 'know' to be true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason I can see for you to object to listing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that requirement. is that at some point you are going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to violate that requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically because it was redundant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not take a genius to know that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, are you stating as a fact that embedded_H <H^> <H^> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H <H"> <H"> both as a matter of DEFINITION go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For H to be correct then on the above specified inputs they
>>>>>>>>>>>> must both go to H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, by DEFINITION that is the WRONG answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of a Correct Halt Decider:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A) H <M> w goes to H.Qy if M w Halts, and to H.Qn if M w
>>>>>>>>>>> never Halts.
>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about these two:
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whenever any embedded_H must abort the simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>> to prevent the infinitely nested simulation of this input the
>>>>>>>>>> entire nested simulation sequence specifies infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>> simulation. This makes a transition to H.qn necessarily
>>>>>>>>>> correct in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, the NESTED simulation, but NOT the H^ / H" that is USING
>>>>>>>>> that embededeed_H, and it is THAT machine that defines the
>>>>>>>>> CORRECT answer for H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That problem is that you are flat out wrong about this.
>>>>>>>> embedded_H IS NOT REPORTING ON ITS OWN BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>> THUS NOT REPORTING ON Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it is NOT a Halt Detector. PERIOD. BY DEFINITON.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. The only thing that it proves is that you persistently
>>>>>> fail to understand that all deciders are only accountable for
>>>>>> their actual inputs. int Sum(3,5) is not accountable for Sum(7,3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you don't understand that the 'behavior of its input' is what
>>>>> the machine its input represents would do with the input provided.
>>>>
>>>> There is not misdirection of any "represents" to it.
>>>> It is what the input actually does, its actual behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Olcott's Theorem
>>>> If a simulating halt decider H must abort the simulation of any
>>>> input to prevent the infinite simulation of this input then it is
>>>> always correct for H to transition to its reject state on this input.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the 'behavior' of the input to "H <M> w" is NOT "M w" then, by
>>> DEFINITION, you are not working on the Halting Problem, so FAIL.
>>>
>>
>> The behavior of the simulation of a TM description is defined as the
>> same as its direct execution. You don't seem to get this.
>>
>>
>
> Right. And the DIRECT EXECUTION of H" <H">


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7882&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7882

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:09:44 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:09:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<suglil$dkp$1@dont-email.me> <9SWOJ.25849$OT%7.13821@fx07.iad>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 1008
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iRQu0NRlKaY5yvn38Sc2L1fKDzxBTESLBQBy7Qz6RLnVQsSywU1QUqFNN1ArFth6TQifcaNn7cm/YDg!j8jvRQcn08i3NF/3d8sYeBcOc2YIApAlPRNrJ4yXwXhPBGQo7Tfdo0Upxaqq4hn4FRjUYMMn6pNg
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 67481
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 04:09 UTC

On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/16/22 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 7:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2022 5:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 1:57 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 11:19 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 5:43 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:22 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 7:54 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:57 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 7:37 PM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:25 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 6:48 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 5:39 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 5:34 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:41 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:08 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 12:01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:50 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 11:36
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:17 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7:10 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/11/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:36 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:39
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/22 10:58
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:18
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLAIM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE ENTIRELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ON
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORDS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definioon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUTSIDE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Q0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Qy/Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bases it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H yields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ALL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copoies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same Output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it IS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strcmp(H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H != 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'representation'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of itself to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fairy Dust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Powered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unicorn stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of itself, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machines DON'T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have access to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been provided as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreeing that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't? Or do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am agreeing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you contradicted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How, by saying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only way a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a copy of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it to be given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and H is defined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a way that it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be given as an extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop making H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the copy of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in H^, it is something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ADD to it, which only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has/affects behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER H makes its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get you so confused you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally lose track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What 'Hypothetical' are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you referencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say that you hardly pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am referencing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making H and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I redefine Ĥ to become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ by eliminating its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop, I probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean: {I redefine Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become Ḧ by eliminating its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does what? Since if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you aren't talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz's H^, your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't mean anything for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It provides a bridge of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding to my HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key skill that I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied throughout my career
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is eliminating "inessential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity" (1999 Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> award winner Fred Brooks) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make   enormously difficult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems as simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you eliminate KEY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASPECTS then you aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about what you need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like learning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic before attacking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algebra.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It lays the foundation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prerequisites for my actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just beware that if you make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement that is only true for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a limited case and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly state so, pointing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that out is NOT a 'Dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dodge'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is know that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working on trying to prove that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Unicorn exists, what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying WILL be looked at in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light anticipating where you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also remember that showing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule happens to be correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one case, doesn't prove that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be for a different case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have gone through all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this before, and it came for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing, but if this is how you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to spend your last days,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knock yourself out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∞ // this path is never taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩ an equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as seems common with your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, you keep on forgetting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CONDITIONS on each line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.q0 <H^> -> H^.Qx <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qy -> ∞ IF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and only if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn If and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ohly if H <H^> <H^> => H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you stipulate that H <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never go to H.Qy, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior on that path can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed with no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the If and only if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clauses, the initial description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect because it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't go to H.Qy for either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version, then changing H^ to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" that omits to loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence, but ONLY under that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This of course shows that H will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be wrong about H", as H" will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS Halt if H answers, and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not answering is always wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus H will either be wrong for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not answering or giving the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only making two versions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Ĥ WITH an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Ḧ WITHOUT an appended infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only this is being examined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the conclusion that H" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equivalent' to H^ is only true (if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you mean equivalent in the sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they compute the same function)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it is the case that neither of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> <H^> or H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you want to indicate some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other definition of 'equivalent' you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using (that could be proper to do so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here), you need to include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions under which the statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, embedded_H / H need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to a state in H, not some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as we append an infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.y is it no longer H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where you are showing your lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of understanding of Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE has said that the machine where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we added the loop is still the machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H, in fact, Linz calls that machine H',
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but H' CONTAINS a complete copy of H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that copy will still act exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the original H to the point where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it gets to the stat Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This ability to compose machines of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies of other machines is basically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the concept of calling subroutines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even if it is implemented differently)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is fundamental to the design and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of Turing Macines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have a problem saying the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subroutine H is no longer the subroutine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H if one function just calls H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns while a second calls H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditionally loops? Yes, the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program is not H, but the subroutine H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still there and will behave exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it used to in both of the cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to map a Turing Machine to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary software is to think of the Q0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state (or whatever is the 'starting'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of the Turing machine) as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entry point for the function, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting States of the Turing Machine as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retrun stateents which return a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating what state the machine ended in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the modifications Linz has done to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H are nothing more that building H^ as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly a call to H, with code before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call to manipulate the tape to add the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second copy, and code after the return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to loop forever if H returns the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Halting' answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine/Subroutine H has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touched at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is equivalent to Ḧ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And my point is that they are only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent in the normal sense of the word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if neither of H <H^> <H^> and H <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without that qualification, it is a false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are equivalent in that neither can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly go to their q.y state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is incorrect without the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification/assumption/stipulation, the H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't go to Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H was a white cat detector and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented H with a black cat would it say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "yes" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't talking about a 'detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know what you are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and showing your dishonesty by your clipping).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THe claim that H^ and H" are equivilent machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has NOTHING to do with there being a 'Detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but do they behave exactly the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are disavowing that both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ and ⟨Ḧ⟩ have a copy of H embedded within them ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt detector is the same idea as a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider yet a halt detector need not get every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input correctly. Every input that the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detector gets correctly is in the domain of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable function that it implements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they have a copy of the Halt Detector H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, and unless you are willing to stipulate that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H will not go to H.Qy when given H^ or H" as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, then you can not show that those machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulating halt decider H cannot possibly go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.qy on a specific input then any such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulation would be redundant for this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why do you resist it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with stipulating as a requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something you 'know' to be true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason I can see for you to object to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listing that requirement. is that at some point you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are going to want to violate that requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically because it was redundant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not take a genius to know that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, are you stating as a fact that embedded_H <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H <H"> <H"> both as a matter of DEFINITION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H.Qn?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For H to be correct then on the above specified inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they must both go to H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, by DEFINITION that is the WRONG answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of a Correct Halt Decider:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A) H <M> w goes to H.Qy if M w Halts, and to H.Qn if M w
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about these two:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever any embedded_H must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent the infinitely nested simulation of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input the entire nested simulation sequence specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation. This makes a transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qn necessarily correct in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, the NESTED simulation, but NOT the H^ / H" that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> USING that embededeed_H, and it is THAT machine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines the CORRECT answer for H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That problem is that you are flat out wrong about this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H IS NOT REPORTING ON ITS OWN BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>> THUS NOT REPORTING ON Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then it is NOT a Halt Detector. PERIOD. BY DEFINITON.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. The only thing that it proves is that you
>>>>>>>>>> persistently fail to understand that all deciders are only
>>>>>>>>>> accountable for their actual inputs. int Sum(3,5) is not
>>>>>>>>>> accountable for Sum(7,3).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you don't understand that the 'behavior of its input' is
>>>>>>>>> what the machine its input represents would do with the input
>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is not misdirection of any "represents" to it.
>>>>>>>> It is what the input actually does, its actual behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olcott's Theorem
>>>>>>>> If a simulating halt decider H must abort the simulation of any
>>>>>>>> input to prevent the infinite simulation of this input then it
>>>>>>>> is always correct for H to transition to its reject state on
>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the 'behavior' of the input to "H <M> w" is NOT "M w" then, by
>>>>>>> DEFINITION, you are not working on the Halting Problem, so FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The behavior of the simulation of a TM description is defined as
>>>>>> the same as its direct execution. You don't seem to get this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. And the DIRECT EXECUTION of H" <H">
>>>>
>>>> Is the wrong thing that you so stupidly repeat.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ at Ĥ.qx cannot possibly reach its final
>>>> state therefore it specifies a sequence of configurations that never
>>>> halt.
>>>
>>> And if H aborts its simulation and goes to H.Qn, the fact that it
>>> didn't reach the final state doesn't matter, as H is not a UTM, and
>>> in fact the UTM simulation of its input WILL see H" go to H".Qn and
>>> Halt.
>>>
>>> If H DOESN'T abort simulation, yes, it proves that H" is non-halting,
>>> but it dies without giving that answer and is wrong because of it.
>>>
>>> H can not do both. You have to choose which way your H is wrong.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Olcott's Theorem
>>>> If a simulating halt decider H must abort the simulation of any
>>>> input to prevent the infinite simulation of this input then it is
>>>> always correct for H to transition to its reject state on this input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You meen Olcott's FALSE Conjecture.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is true on the basis of the meaning of its words.
>>
>
> Except that it isn't by the proper meaning of the words when you combine
> it with the meaning of the other words you use.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7883&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7883

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:22:54 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:22:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-99fwmEhkX1xVgRRV9xNcmSw0Sn/3wa+pRkk3R9uz82tRU2RRH8HgQPthKGv7h45I8lAXGuLWZbr2Zvg!u7msiBFkLmZi4kcmMbVXO4HwgQZdL843nlZ3IGY99QNyBsYCVz19xVYxZiACFG9Q6QpQ04jwMpKm
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3149
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 04:22 UTC

On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>

>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to its
>> reject state.
>>
>
> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>
> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>

Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows of an
office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the words.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7884&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7884

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:33:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:33:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 67
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-cabcRXHzOey5CbwcPH9e5yWmzozJOSj6c49cxI1JQihC9Umu8AWc09pN0cde1NyA9n3ExX7cqScTZNM!8fQKyKL+wT03h5ozYDAwj/43Lpr0AjDbRDbZdqDwe5YeBeuQ48qQoV8rUpfKzIbuHeOaEIfXdciE
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4444
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:33 UTC

On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>> its reject state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>
>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>
>>
>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows of an
>> office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the words.
>
> RED HERRING.
>
> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic systems
> and informal ones.
>
> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>
>>
>
> Your monument to your stupidity.
>
> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>
> FAIL.
>
> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something, but if
> you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you have a VERY
> long wait.
>
> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why you
> just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer review to
> make statements.

Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.

You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.

The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7885&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7885

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:36:50 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:36:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me> <f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-y9XlvDNReeHIKr2HzxHolHJQ77n13l1zJVHSqWIcr5Gb+RUngiXHIi1EwAX1UbNRcXT0QpgwKJ651nS!OsTHd86M79A1jkHwN142zDxE5ZUoO18DmTHDeSsl5wJKgDUNfEY1IVaLjw/eKbruR3+tLgwjUWQ2
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4738
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:36 UTC

On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows of
>>> an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the words.
>>
>> RED HERRING.
>>
>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic systems
>> and informal ones.
>>
>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>
>>>
>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>
>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something, but if
>> you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you have a VERY
>> long wait.
>>
>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why you
>> just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer review to
>> make statements.
>
> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
> its reject state.
>
> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>
> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.

Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on its
own without being aborted.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7888&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7888

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:07 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 185
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HGx0sBLJtKQtpuBWBAR6iwhIA+n70jjlMTmOvXJieO2wwF+u3AuX49pCGuXQB5bu3BlJX84CteG1Iog!W1fBppcXFzCCSMRLKERKNLcFMf0E2YWGhaVxDeJvYZTWBuiokaKaTXtklcGPHeU3TDkX+8cEOg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9460
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:44 UTC

On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>> words.
>>>>>
>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>
>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>> its reject state.
>>>>
>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>
>>
>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>
>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>> halt. That is accepted.
>>
>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>> have the following trace:
>>
>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>> H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>
>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>
>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>
>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>
>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>>
>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>> logic or how to prove something.
>>
>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>
>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>
>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>> formal step by step proofs.
>>
>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>
>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>
>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>> actual 'Facts'.
>>
>> FAIL.
>
> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>
> /Flibble
>

According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.

Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea why
you would be reversing course now.

I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.

People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed to
its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with mine
until after I fully formed my own view.

Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

The key benefit of my research is the it eliminates the limit to
computability and anchors Davidson's "truth conditional semantics" in a
formalized notion of truth. Analytical truth (of the analytic versus
synthetic distinction) is merely a set of mutually interlocking semantic
tautologies.

Some expressions of language are defined to be true (basic facts) such
as "cats are animals" and other expressions of language can be deduced
from these {basic facts}.

This sums up my view HP proof rebuttal quite concisely:
[Halt status criteria that correctly handles pathological
self-reference] (posted in this group).

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<zPudneGKipT3M5P_nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7890&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7890

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:22:02 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:22:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220217194845.000037aa@reddwarf.jmc>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220217194845.000037aa@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zPudneGKipT3M5P_nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 215
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9rv3r7ZbGr7yJG3BQL7js7vfsPLf4UyIfrECq/cI5HV9Q7YHNNSe3JHHJoxcoWMR6+YY7DPcQW2cOPL!4q52kgXgvojRAVxTeL+IymGHbrx8OaMy2Hx3t9k0RdGYmG07NGQce3isFwGy4rufZ7B9QFel9Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 10724
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:22 UTC

On 2/17/2022 1:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>> windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>> why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>> peer review to make statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>> never halt. That is accepted.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>
>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
>>>> to H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>
>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>> applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>> BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>> is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>
>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>> means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>
>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>
>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>
>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>> goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>> which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>> that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
>>>> a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>
>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>> why you would be reversing course now.
>
> I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your
> argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
> cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
> for the proofs.
>
> /Flibble
>

Do you have any suggestions of a way that I can proceed such that this
category error can be clearly seen by others?

The closest thing that I have found that might accomplish this is
something along the lines of a much simpler analogy that
Daryl McCullough came up with 6/25/04 on the sci.logic USENET group.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<Au2dnTgth-hdLJP_nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7891&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7891

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:36:16 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:36:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220217195015.00003c53@reddwarf.jmc>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220217195015.00003c53@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Au2dnTgth-hdLJP_nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 176
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vqOZZzTFuAQPSDUR6jG4E8cF7uAJot9og5z9AXsPytnt2Zk/SqbEeMV08FneaLtylpI4S5lbYJmTf96!L8jEl8EvH6BJXloCN7tscAxY3wkScOnfX1JiWdYZ40kS15ZFdoWyxn80V/6SWj+45fHYibc1Zw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9046
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:36 UTC

On 2/17/2022 1:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>> windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>> why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>> peer review to make statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>> never halt. That is accepted.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>
>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
>>>> to H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>
>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>> applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>> BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>> is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>
>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>> means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>
>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>
>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>
>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>> goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>> which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>> that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
>>>> a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>
> I am really sorry to hear that. :( I hope you live as long as possible
> without pain.
>
> /Flibble

The only issue now is my seemingly probable greatly shortened life span.
There is no pain, discomfort or signs of illness besides my huge lymph
nodes. The one under my right arm pit is about the size of a tennis
ball: two inches in diameter.

https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi
My FLIPI index score of 3 gave me a 35% 10 year survival rate and a 53%
5 year survival rate from date of diagnosis two years ago last December.

0.35 * 10 = 3.50
0.53 * 5 = 2.65
(3.5 + 2.65) / 2 = 3.075 years from December 19, 2019
(about 11 more months left from now)

Any help with my proof would be greatly appreciated.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7892&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7892

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:58:11 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:58:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wkcS0+qvy33fKr0bC/IBPRka2/z7p3BZPjDAncP2IgF8TasNTVPckk0PeqPwVM7EeIVWeBgGmbGsh1c!NUc5tf6RkD6adSldKrqAilQ7qudad1hPO+E92nVttT/EiUhNERmHbKWuUVm+8Cbfyv859eHeeA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4769
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:58 UTC

On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> [...]
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>
> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
> on this prediction.
>
> ...
>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
>> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>
>
>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
>> boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed
>> to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with
>> mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>
>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>
> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
> in acting like a crank.
>

If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski Undefinability
Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's Halting problem
proof are all correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken.

Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
notion of truth that is actually broken.

Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is by
its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category error
and Gödel must be wrong.

This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of these
details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through from
scratch. Elon Musk calls this: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7893&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7893

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:31:17 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:31:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 93
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RnsZuO+r1rxnPH5WFfCBh7KwVivwPG41JAdxgpGAKcuWjokW00gw75teSOTTnGMvfjSUdoNCPvEYTc2!+3hkV+AsZOXnb1DWpUaokbEr6XDzSmx4nTmgUKdKKvT7vSF1GJCUcgK/AGng6F5rt7GkGJ6RHQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6125
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:31 UTC

On 2/17/2022 8:13 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>
>>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>>> on this prediction.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
>>>> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>>>
>>>
>>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
>>>> actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
>>>> then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view
>>>> agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>>
>>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>>
>>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>>> in acting like a crank.
>>>
>>
>> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
>> Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
>> Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
>> fundamentally broken.
>>
>> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
>> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
>> notion of truth that is actually broken.
>>
>> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
>> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
>> only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is
>> by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category
>> error and Gödel must be wrong.
>>
>> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
>> these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
>> from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
>> https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
> you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
> delusional crank.

Wittgenstein perfectly agrees and he was one of the leaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

When we boil things down to their barest essence as Turing Award (1999)
winner Fred Brooks suggests in his "No Silver Bullet—Essence and
Accident in Software Engineering" we find Wittgenstein's view of 1931
Gödel Incompleteness is exactly correct rather than a simplistic
misunderstanding.

The reason why I know this view is correct is the I discovered every
single detail of Wittgenstein's view before I ever heard of Wittgenstein.

For the entire body of analytic knowledge that includes all of math and
logic no expression of language can be known to be true unless and until
it is proven to be true. This makes 1931 Gödel Incompleteness incorrect
before it even gets started.

I dare you to find a single error of substance anywhere in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7894&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7894

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:08:25 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:08:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 169
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-79d1d/pC0xB0JQefSvXzDDU5hFvpQ+twuU+QUngN8LFhE2jOlub1trl/NxlyAlLsoGEI1SyHUXMB5w7!6+eMjg090yqREio4HWQZAL6g/u+fA61iInKL1UvzSg2wiBN/zFlcKelJ/L8Z67mSZ1qHWLBt9A==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8956
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:08 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>
>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>
>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>
>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>
>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>
>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>
>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>
>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>
>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>> why you would be reversing course now.
>
> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.

Here is Flibble's reply:

On 2/17/2022 1:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>> why you would be reversing course now.
>
> I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your
> argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
> cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
> for the proofs.
>
> /Flibble
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7896&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7896

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:30:56 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:30:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 167
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RQRgxmst8d7Hhotwjp0S7Zbg6GE6s6kqLSD62xr1CAF/SIZ7V0Y+kXO0NjU2CXDoeOsOfuqOYr/VAbq!0TpfGEtKZK4ecTusQhED2OQ+c0HWA8gXfs7xEToVr4D8W6tGmxonWp+p9iKnU/Km0LYNGmLUcg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9213
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:30 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>
>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>>
>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>
>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>
> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>
> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
> from other cranks.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<LdadnV1HQd2XiZL_nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7897&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7897

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:35:38 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:35:36 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2ec$16at$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <sun2ec$16at$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <LdadnV1HQd2XiZL_nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 109
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ztI8Unmz6DXm77KPha8iAO9oKBAICUiapQqoYWsY6tgk3Ey5BB05fuoWNA1BLVgIJaVtc7/tXNlJY+f!3QbOR5HkLzwhXVgcE3pz+AluBK+62fpuEDMCrHT+0UA7RgFiGw9Wcc+Z5+5VPunx3ZrxallNIQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6731
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:35 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:06 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 8:13 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>>>>> on this prediction.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>>>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox.
>>>>>> See also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel
>>>>>> Theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
>>>>>> actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
>>>>>> then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's
>>>>>> view agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>>>>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>>>>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>>>>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>>>>> in acting like a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
>>>> Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
>>>> Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
>>>> fundamentally broken.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
>>>> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible
>>>> human notion of truth that is actually broken.
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
>>>> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction)
>>>> the only way that one can know that any expression of language is
>>>> true is by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a
>>>> category error and Gödel must be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
>>>> these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
>>>> from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
>>>> https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
>>> you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
>>> delusional crank.
>>
>> Wittgenstein perfectly agrees and he was one of the leaders
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
>>
>> When we boil things down to their barest essence as Turing Award
>> (1999) winner Fred Brooks suggests in his "No Silver Bullet—Essence
>> and Accident in Software Engineering" we find Wittgenstein's view of
>> 1931 Gödel Incompleteness is exactly correct rather than a simplistic
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> The reason why I know this view is correct is the I discovered every
>> single detail of Wittgenstein's view before I ever heard of Wittgenstein.
>
> This is quite weak a reason.

Since I independently created all of his reasoning myself, I have
first-hand knowledge of what he meant. I don't have to figure out what
he meant second-hand, because I have first-hand knowledge of what he meant.

I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
simple sentence.

Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7898&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7898

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:06:29 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 204
Message-ID: <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:06:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f7efda6bdb3326541375d8192e2161d2";
logging-data="7734"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6iJUTg3J2St1nlxyh5927"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Oj4BCQahHxGSS3gMeK6pbekfhE=
In-Reply-To: <MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:06 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which
>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>
>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>
>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>> from other cranks.
>>>
>>
>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
>> simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>
>
> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
>
> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only be
> something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that Truth is
> only something that csn be proven.
>
> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>
> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that must
> either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but these
> statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example
> of this is the 3x+1 problem.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7899&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7899

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:55:34 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:55:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 241
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WzJlSsg61JvMMGVhNhgkVhFGTqkr+V6GVLnI3RVqB2dLdxxovCTnamVt5oSGnFatfj3M+IJbR+OEUf/!OXMY4NpJdVIV9bCcHDLzmrNF4J7ULdMIFT4N1j+vHnde0ZbrslcD0HxyVQSCuljbKAigMnhfgA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12043
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:55 UTC

On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H
>>>>>>>>>> <H">
>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about
>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that
>>>>>>>>>> you goal
>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to
>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
>>>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>
>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
>>>> my paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
>>>
>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only
>>> be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that
>>> Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>
>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>
>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but
>>> these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable.
>>> An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>
>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has
>> been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical
>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value
>> of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately
>> anchored in axioms.
>>
>
> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7900&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7900

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:55:38 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 274
Message-ID: <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:55:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f7efda6bdb3326541375d8192e2161d2";
logging-data="17830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5eftpSKTUSwXkdLtoGxOJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U+YI058Mz8S8T/6CDm4uXDam6vk=
In-Reply-To: <SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:55 UTC

On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with
>>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these
>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be reversing
>>>>>>>>>>>> course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance
>>>>>>>> in my paper:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>>>>> premise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can
>>>>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements
>>>>>>> that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle
>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable
>>>>>>> or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it
>>>>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>>>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to
>>>>> assume.
>>>>
>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely
>>>> on the basis of their meaning.
>>>
>>> WRONG. Formal;
>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>
>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat
>> is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
>>
>
> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already
> defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the
> rules of Formal Logic.
(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7901&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7901

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:18:53 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:18:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 276
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2TLxajI9WAVsPanXjh46b/rwWLduJ6HA9lX4i9V+JApO0JfY73pohjy3RYghOuh4n03bVUHg9g3+FUp!BU0sbfl7Velerw+Mw+kdy9rySmDgyeT5elD1Gg4RFWg8MV+mR1yyEjkIAZ9nhDOtC7eljB3eXw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 14597
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:18 UTC

On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for
>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to
>>>>>>>>>> a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of
>>>>>>>>>> substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>>>>>>> premise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth
>>>>>>>>> can only be something that is proven, and then from that try to
>>>>>>>>> prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements
>>>>>>>>> that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle
>>>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable
>>>>>>>>> or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after
>>>>>>>> it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>>>>>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to
>>>>>>> assume.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat
>>>> is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already
>>> defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates
>>> the rules of Formal Logic.
>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
>> meaning"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>
> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
logic is a branch of philosophy


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7902&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7902

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 12:41:19 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 12:41:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 297
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ELDBdb08xSXUBrLmetX4cd2YRHcK4EZjVpJy8QpNwkNb5ldhv8XI6rtsgp/O//86SJTqNPKjdrbAsQq!R8nJXyNLYC+8WjzV9QlZ0yqb2rgK6n1tCFONu2kjYT8fSWJFddS0VIti990IY9ODX6uEZ+Ghrw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 15874
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:41 UTC

On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down
>>>>>>>>>>>> to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of
>>>>>>>>>>>> substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as
>>>>>>>>>>> a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth
>>>>>>>>>>> can only be something that is proven, and then from that try
>>>>>>>>>>> to prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements
>>>>>>>>>>> that must either be True of False, there is no possible
>>>>>>>>>>> middle ground, but these statements have not been shown to be
>>>>>>>>>>> provable or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until
>>>>>>>>>> after it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine
>>>>>>>>>> if an analytical expression of language is true. It is an
>>>>>>>>>> axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived
>>>>>>>>>> by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need
>>>>>>>>> to assume.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a
>>>>>> cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something
>>>>> already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That
>>>>> violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of
>>>> their meaning"
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>
>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>
>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>
>>
>
> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different rules.
> Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things differently than
> what you want to use.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7904&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7904

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:03:22 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:03:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 370
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xr4VdzOtGsw7ayvf0X/9LdyOpD2jM6em9Ie79zQHHo34O0BZvpc8Ol71dWExCQeipMTZwqTboiZaR2t!g4M6XzX3onpcnKHoVfhuKR2WGnx9SXcO7siCmGsB3FNdjAPxel89+SxCT/T+gjLj7Zw83J18tA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 19822
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:03 UTC

On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth can only be something that is proven, and then from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that try to prove that Truth is only something that csn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible middle ground, but these statements have not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after it has been proven. There are only two ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine if an analytical expression of language is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that
>>>>>>>>>> a cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something
>>>>>>>>> already defined in the system, especially to something wrong.
>>>>>>>>> That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of
>>>>>>>> their meaning"
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different
>>>>> rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
>>>>> differently than what you want to use.
>>>>
>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth preserving
>>>> operations to premises that are known to be true (sound deductive
>>>> inference) on the basis of the semantic relevance that is maintained
>>>> in the syllogism:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>
>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet still
>>>> requires true preserving operations to be applied on the basis of
>>>> semantic relevance.
>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
>>>> agrees is
>>> the truth.
>>>
>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>
>>
>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the basic
>>> principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to discuss it.
>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote understanding
>> cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>
>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct
>> reasoning is based.
>>
>
> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>
> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
> Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7905&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7905

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:39:53 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:39:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 379
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-M88bZVBc88mnrTxp4JlCIXIDFXjTgGbAywlb+8k/OIRfvLTKxyUW/2zrZ+bUbR161L3l8QpHCA1yhBx!tH3c+1WFF1GJVsd2GP1LdsOs0g2be+scMXaBH+zHn1Kf3inWtlwMm7cBLTTeh1U0dh+pV7/0uA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 20627
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:39 UTC

On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth can only be something that is proven, and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that try to prove that Truth is only something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no possible middle ground, but these statements have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to determine if an analytical expression of language is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. It is derived by sound deduction that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in
>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a cat is the windows of an office building you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something
>>>>>>>>>>> already defined in the system, especially to something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue
>>>>>>>>>> of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different
>>>>>>> rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
>>>>>>> differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth preserving
>>>>>> operations to premises that are known to be true (sound deductive
>>>>>> inference) on the basis of the semantic relevance that is
>>>>>> maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet still
>>>>>> requires true preserving operations to be applied on the basis of
>>>>>> semantic relevance.
>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
>>>>>> agrees is
>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the basic
>>>>> principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to discuss it.
>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote understanding
>>>> cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>
>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct
>>>> reasoning is based.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>
>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
>>> Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless.
>>>
>>
>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
>> opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
>
> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic underpinnings
> peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory peripheral. If you want to
> challenge the definition of Truth used in Formal Logic, you don't work
> in a peripheral field, which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it
> uses, because it has inhereted it from its
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<1pGdnYC9pcQFvY3_nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7906&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7906

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:41:28 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:41:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2KUPJ.21827$0vE9.17210@fx17.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <2KUPJ.21827$0vE9.17210@fx17.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1pGdnYC9pcQFvY3_nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 415
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KxaD64rRWqAUQm3RXWeR0rYYh42BKLdL5qxDLIiZWE4N/D88GqRYp/y3KVxzm5Grbty5Qtq/R9hZmIV!co6Vc0kAvvUUYcnxXRd1Daz2nZudg5gleB1HOyQoiZbWH5q2+8VOh50qEqPkz/6RVtTb8A39gA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 22751
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 22:41 UTC

On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find a single error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth can only be something that is proven, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then from that try to prove that Truth is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no possible middle ground, but these statements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to determine if an analytical expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a cat is the windows of an office building you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue
>>>>>>>>>>>> of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different
>>>>>>>>> rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
>>>>>>>>> differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be true
>>>>>>>> (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the semantic
>>>>>>>> relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet
>>>>>>>> still requires true preserving operations to be applied on the
>>>>>>>> basis of semantic relevance.
>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
>>>>>>>> agrees is
>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>> basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to
>>>>>>> discuss it.
>>>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct
>>>>>> reasoning is based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
>>>>> Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
>>>> opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
>>>
>>> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used in
>>> Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, which CAN'T
>>> change the definition of Truth it uses, because it has inhereted it
>>> from its
>>>
>>
>> (a) The halting problem proofs,
>> (b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
>> (c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
>> (d) The liar paradox
>> all suffer from the same foundational error.
>
> I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely DIFFERENT sort
> of issue,
>
>>
>> When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
>> statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four of
>> the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.
>
> Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that you
> can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
>
> What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can be
> True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true, you can't
> use it for the basis of a further proof.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<c5ydndJBYJQ8sY3_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7907&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7907

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:32:49 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:32:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2KUPJ.21827$0vE9.17210@fx17.iad>
<1pGdnYC9pcQFvY3_nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0LVPJ.37393$f2a5.202@fx48.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <0LVPJ.37393$f2a5.202@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <c5ydndJBYJQ8sY3_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 394
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XtRWxevVYAhOxwbaSWVcWtul5V6OrxLzSFmcMQ1B5SkT/eMChZXDdv/5hpi70lxi8n3D25a4DSvYvka!64t2/dDEsG675/1K7zfAgCnAq3mv9+PSTLqR2uVj/Odu6TJDKJnLHtZ4x9WKKIqZYgk8mSBA7g==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 22741
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 23:32 UTC

On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find a single error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth can only be something that is proven,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then from that try to prove that Truth is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no possible middle ground, but these statements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not been shown to be provable or disprovable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to determine if an analytical expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a cat is the windows of an office building you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with
>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines
>>>>>>>>>>> things differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be true
>>>>>>>>>> (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the semantic
>>>>>>>>>> relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet
>>>>>>>>>> still requires true preserving operations to be applied on the
>>>>>>>>>> basis of semantic relevance.
>>>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
>>>>>>>>>> agrees is
>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>>> basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to
>>>>>>>>> discuss it.
>>>>>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which
>>>>>>>> correct reasoning is based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all
>>>>>>> of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is
>>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
>>>>>> opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used
>>>>> in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, which CAN'T
>>>>> change the definition of Truth it uses, because it has inhereted it
>>>>> from its
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (a) The halting problem proofs,
>>>> (b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
>>>> (c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
>>>> (d) The liar paradox
>>>> all suffer from the same foundational error.
>>>
>>> I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely DIFFERENT
>>> sort of issue,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
>>>> statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four of
>>>> the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that you
>>> can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
>>>
>>> What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can be
>>> True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true, you
>>> can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
>>>
>>
>> Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language is
>> only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that it is
>> true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.
>
> Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your interpreation of
> it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of Mathematics, (and related
> logic families) as they allow for a statement to be True without needing
> to be connected to a proof. PERIOD.
Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical expression is
true aside from its proof that it is true?


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor