Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.


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 ]( appliolcott
|      `* 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
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:37 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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
View all headers
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.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:12 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:17 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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⟩

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 03:10 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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:

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 04:09 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 04:22 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:33 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:36 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:44 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:22 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
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
View all headers
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.

I recently contacted him through Facebook and he is the original author of: "Jack's question" It took me many years to track down the original author of this original post. For many years I called it Bill's question and may have attributed the authorship to someone else.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/4kIXI1kxmsI/m/hRroMoQZx2IJ

You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
yes/no answer to the following question:

Will Jack's answer to this question be no?

Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.

Daryl applied his analogy to Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting problem proof.




By slightly adapting the halt status criterion measure a halt decider may be defined that correctly determines the halt status of the conventional halting problem proof counter-examples.

Simple English version of Olcott's Halt status criterion measure:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to its reject state.

Somewhat formalized version of Olcott's Halt status criterion measure:
Let ⟨M⟩ describe a Turing machine M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q₀, □, F), and let w be any element of Σ⁺, A solution of the halting problem is a Turing machine H, which for any ⟨M⟩ and w, performs the computation (Linz 1990:317)

H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy ----- iff UTM( ⟨M⟩, w ) reaches the final state of M
H.q0 ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qn ----- iff UTM( ⟨M⟩, w ) would never reach the final state of M

RHS is a paraphrase of Ben Bacarisse encoding of my halt status criterion measure.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:36 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
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
View all headers
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.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:58 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:31 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math, sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:08 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:30 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:35 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:06 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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.

Haskell Curry (1977) cites this notion of axiom, quoted in the appendix of 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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:55 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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.

By what means can any analytic expression of language be correctly known to be true besides semantic tautology (defined below)?

It is either known to be true by definition:
Dogs are defined to be animals.
Or is is known to be true by sound deductive inference:
(1) Dogs are defined to be animals.
(2) Animals are defined to be living things.
∴ Dogs are living things.

The proof of what I say is that no counter-example exists.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:55 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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

(2) A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. ...
Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

The above is the ultimate foundation of truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:18 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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
View all headers
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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:41 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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.


Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:03 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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
View all headers
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

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:39 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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
View all headers
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:

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 22:41 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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
View all headers
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:

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 23:32 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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
View all headers
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:

Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor