On 2/28/2022 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> This reminded me of Olcott
>
> <https://xkcd.com/2566/>
>
> André
>

You still have not shown that I am incorrect.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

It is the case than unless embedded_H aborts the simulation of its input
that this input would never stop running.

It is also the case that the fact that this
IS A REASONABLE MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A NON HALTING SEQUENCE
OF CONFIGURATIONS.

The above two facts taken together prove that the essence of my idea is
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

On 2/28/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/28/22 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2022 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> This reminded me of Olcott
>>>
>>> <https://xkcd.com/2566/>
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> You still have not shown that I am incorrect.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> It is the case than unless embedded_H aborts the simulation of its
>> input that this input would never stop running.
>>
>> It is also the case that the fact that this
>> IS A REASONABLE MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A NON HALTING
>> SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.
>>
>> The above two facts taken together prove that the essence of my idea
>> is correct.
>>
>
> It is only a reasonable measure if H NEVER aborts its simulation (not
> unless, NEVER).
It is known to be a reasonable measure on the basis of the meaning of
its words. The meaning of these words are simply over your head.

For every type of non-halting sequence of configurations:
(a) Infinite loop
(b) Infinite Recursion
(c) Infinitely nested simulation
(d) Pathological self-reference

As long as the simulation would never stop running unless the simulating
halt decider H aborted its simulation H is necessarily always correct to
reject this input.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/28/2022 6:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/28/22 7:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/28/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/28/22 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2022 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> This reminded me of Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://xkcd.com/2566/>
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You still have not shown that I am incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> It is the case than unless embedded_H aborts the simulation of its
>>>> input that this input would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> It is also the case that the fact that this
>>>> IS A REASONABLE MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A NON HALTING
>>>> SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.
>>>>
>>>> The above two facts taken together prove that the essence of my idea
>>>> is correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is only a reasonable measure if H NEVER aborts its simulation (not
>>> unless, NEVER).
>> It is known to be a reasonable measure on the basis of the meaning of
>> its words. The meaning of these words are simply over your head.
>
> Nope. Maybe to someone who doesn't understand the REAL meaning.
>
> Since we HAVE an actual definition, and you have even shown you KNOW it,
> the fact that you don't use it just shows you are a pathological liar.
>
> BY DEFINITION:
>
> H <M> w needs to -> H.Qy if M w Halts and -> H.Qn if M w never halts.
> Thus H <H^> <H^> needs to go to H.Qy if H^ <H^> Halts.
>
> Since you claim that H <H^> <H^> is correct in going to H.Qn we know
> that it does this, and we also know by the rules of construction of H^
> that the H^ that this copy of H was put into when applied to <H^> will
> use that H to see that H -> H.Qn, so H^ -> H^.Qn and Halts.
>
> Since if H^ applied to <H^> Halts, we know that for H to have been
> correct, it needed to go to H.Qy not H.Qn, so BY DEFINTION H was wrong,
> and any claim otherwise is just a LIE.
>

The actual behavior of the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H proves
that I am right.

When someone smashes a Boston cream pie in your face denying that this
is not possible "in theory" does not stop the pie from dripping from
your face.

> Maybe these words are just over your head, if so, you need to stop
> lyiing and making claims you know something about this.
>
> FAIL.
>
>>
>> For every type of non-halting sequence of configurations:
>> (a) Infinite loop
>> (b) Infinite Recursion
>> (c) Infinitely nested simulation
>> (d) Pathological self-reference
>
> except it doesn't work for (d) as shown above.

It does work for (d) you are merely having a break from reality.

It is the case that unless embedded_H aborts the simulation of its input
that this simulation never stops. You know and acknowledge that this is
true.

A reasonable mind (not yours) would comprehend that this means that the
input to embedded_H specifies a sequence of configurations that never
halt in the same way that an infinite loop specifies a sequence of
configurations that never halt. It is the exact same principle in both
cases.

You keep saying that if H aborts its simulation that the infinitely
nested simulation no longer exists. This is exactly the same as when H
aborts its simulation of an infinite loop, the loop stops running
because it has been aborted.

Aborting the simulation of an otherwise infinite sequence of
configurations does not magically transform them into halting computations.

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

On 3/1/2022 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-02-28 22:47:44 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> These two lines contradict each other,
> so at least one of them is false,
> possibly both.
>
> Mikko
>

It is a paraphrase of Linz bottom of page 319.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/1/2022 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> writes:
>
>> On 2022-02-28 22:47:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> These two lines contradict each other,
>> so at least one of them is false,
>> possibly both.
>
> PO makes a habit of omitting the key conditions under which each line
> applies. This has been pointed out so often that it must be
> deliberate. The trouble is that the conditions are what shows PO to be
> wrong so he's spent some time trying to find words for his own
> conditions that make it sound a bit like he is still talking about a
> halt decider. The conditions are
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>

Those are not the conditions.
The copy of the simulating halt decider H embedded at Ĥ.qx will be
called embedded_H

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will
halt without aborting the simulation of its input

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will NOT
halt without aborting the simulation of its input

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/1/2022 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-28 22:47:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> These two lines contradict each other,
>>>> so at least one of them is false,
>>>> possibly both.
>>> PO makes a habit of omitting the key conditions under which each line
>>> applies. This has been pointed out so often that it must be
>>> deliberate. The trouble is that the conditions are what shows PO to be
>>> wrong so he's spent some time trying to find words for his own
>>> conditions that make it sound a bit like he is still talking about a
>>> halt decider. The conditions are
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>
>> Those are not the conditions.
>
> Indeed they are not. I made a typo. You, however, cannot give the
> correct ones because they show you to be wrong. Instead you must pile
> on the verbiage:
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will
>> halt without aborting the simulation of its input
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>> if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will
>> NOT halt without aborting the simulation of its input
>
> If these were same as those in Linz you would use the far simpler
> conditions from Linz, but in actual fact you are re-defining what
> halting means hoping that you won't be called out on it.
>
> I'll call you out on it: you have not changed your stance since you made
> the fatal mistake of being crystal clear:
>
> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
> even though P(P) halts?
>
> You: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>
> Until to accept that this is simply wrong, everything you say on the
> topic is just hot air.
>

I explain your mistake about this in terms of Turing machine deciders:
On 2/28/2022 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V63 [ Linz Proof ][ Ben's
mistake ]

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

On 3/1/2022 5:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I explain your mistake about this in terms of Turing machine deciders:
>> On 2/28/2022 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V63 [ Linz Proof ][ Ben's
>> mistake ]
>
> You can't even be bothered to learn how to cite a Usenet post (it's not
> hard).
>
> But that suits me fine. You appear to want to talk forever, whereas all
> I want to do is remind readers that you are not addressing the halting
> problem,

I pointed out your mistake On 2/28/2022 11:59 AM
Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V63 [ Linz Proof ][ Ben's
mistake ]

> and that you have been 100% clear about this in the past:
>
> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
> even though P(P) halts?
> You: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>

I have not been talking about H(P,P) for many months.
I point out your mistake in terms of Linz.

You apparently don't really know how deciders work, otherwise you would
not have made this mistake.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>
>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>
> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
> at Linz's proof yet.
>

Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other mapping?

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

On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a clear
>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet? It's theorem 12.2, a page
>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have looked
>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>
>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>> mapping?
>
> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>
> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions. But by all
> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>

You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than a
>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2, a
>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them completely.
>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>> looked
>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>> mapping?
>>>
>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>
>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by all
>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are prepared to
>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>
>>
>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>
> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>
> FAIL,
>

You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think that
deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the
>>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But
>>>>>>> by all
>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY
>>>>>> compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state
>>>>>> by perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has
>>>>>> anything to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>>>>>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. Thanks for making that Clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You too are not aware that deciders ONLY compute the mapping from
>>>> their inputs to an accept or reject state. You and Ben still think
>>>> that deciders must compute mappings from non-inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, they compute the CORRECT mapping of their inputs, and the
>>> CORRECT mapping for a Halt Decider is H applied <M> w depends on the
>>> behavior of M applied to w, so H applied to <H^> <H^> IS responsible
>>> for the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.
>>>
>>> So, your claim that this isn't what your H does, just PROVES that
>>> your H is NOT computing the Halting Function, and thus is NOT a Halt
>>> Decider.
>>>
>>> Thank you for admitting that, or are you just a pathological liar?
>>
>> The embedded copy of H at Ĥ.qx does not compute the halt status of
>> itself or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to embedded_H NITWIT
>>
>
> But it IS the thing that determine the correct answer for embedded_H if
> it is a Halt Decider, so it must not be.
Because it is not an input to the decider it is out-of-scope for the
decider. If I ask you: How long is your car? and you measure the height
of your front door you gave me a wrong answer.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less than
>>>>>>>>>> a clear
>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem 12.2,
>>>>>>>>> a page
>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the key
>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you have
>>>>>>> looked
>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>
>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But by
>>>>> all
>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>> prepared to
>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has anything
>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense -- that's no
>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem, and
>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>>>
>>
>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are dishonest.
>>
>
> Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.

Most often your rebuttals are only confused gibberish.

Your key mistake is not having the slightest idea of how simulating halt
deciders work even though I have explained it many hundreds of times.

You keep thinking that if a simulating halt decider must abort its
simulation to report that its input specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations that this makes this input halt and thus the reported
non-halting wrong.

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

The above specifies an infinite loop even when its simulation has been
aborted to report "infinite loop".

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

On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's theorem
>>>>>>>>>>> 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep repeating the
>>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that you
>>>>>>>>> have looked
>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other
>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.  But
>>>>>>> by all
>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you are
>>>>>>> prepared to
>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders ONLY compute
>>>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take you through
>>>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>>>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense --
>>>>> that's no
>>>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this problem,
>>>>> and
>>>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which reject.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are dishonest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.
>>
>> Most often your rebuttals are only confused gibberish.
>>
>> Your key mistake is not having the slightest idea of how simulating
>> halt deciders work even though I have explained it many hundreds of
>> times.
>>
>> You keep thinking that if a simulating halt decider must abort its
>> simulation to report that its input specifies a non-halting sequence
>> of configurations that this makes this input halt and thus the
>> reported non-halting wrong.
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>> The above specifies an infinite loop even when its simulation has been
>> aborted to report "infinite loop".
>>
>
> It isn't the decider aborting that makes H^ Halting, it is H going to
> H.Qn that makes H^ non-halting (since H^ x will always go to H^.Qn and
> halt if H x x goes to H.Qn)
>

As I have said many dozens of times now

NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider must
abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite simulation of
this input that this input specifies an infinite sequence of
configurations.

When-so-ever the simulated input to a simulating halt decider
demonstrates behavior that meets the NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE then
the simulating halt decider is always correct to reject this input.

The above is proved totally true entirely on the basis of the meaning of
its words just like this: If we have a black cat then we know we have a
cat.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx is ONLY responsible for computing the mapping
of its inputs to an accept or reject state.

embedded_H is not responsible for determining the halt status of itself
or the computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because neither of these are
inputs to embedded_H.

> H is perfectly allowed to abort its simulation and do something else,
> either loop forever or go to H.Qy, and H^ will stay non-halting, its
> just H didn't give the right answer.
>
> You are just confused about how cause and effect work.
>
> FAIL.
>
>

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

On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating the key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But by all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are prepared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY compute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>>>>>>>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> has anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take
>>>>>>>>>>> you through
>>>>>>>>>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>>>>>>>>>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense --
>>>>>>>>>>> that's no
>>>>>>>>>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this
>>>>>>>>>>> problem, and
>>>>>>>>>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and which
>>>>>>>>>>> reject.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are
>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most often your rebuttals are only confused gibberish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your key mistake is not having the slightest idea of how
>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders work even though I have explained it
>>>>>>>> many hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep thinking that if a simulating halt decider must abort
>>>>>>>> its simulation to report that its input specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations that this makes this input halt and
>>>>>>>> thus the reported non-halting wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above specifies an infinite loop even when its simulation
>>>>>>>> has been aborted to report "infinite loop".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't the decider aborting that makes H^ Halting, it is H
>>>>>>> going to H.Qn that makes H^ non-halting (since H^ x will always
>>>>>>> go to H^.Qn and halt if H x x goes to H.Qn)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> simulation of this input that this input specifies an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>
>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>
>>
>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
>> natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>
>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is not
>> sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs model
>> theory to help with this.
>>
>
> You don't get to change the logic.
>

On 3/3/2022 7:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>> points.
>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about. Of course you
>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
>>> mistakes!
>>
>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
>> you are not my target audience.
>
> By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
> this simple theorem over 17 years ago. 17 years. How long can on paper
> take to finish?
>

I have to make my proof so clearly correct that it is fully understood
before it is rejected out-of-hand on the basis of its subject matter.

I still need to learn more about computable functions. None of the
theory of computation textbooks go into the same depth that others here
refer to. I was not sure that a RASP computable function could know its
own machine address until André's explanation.

THIS IS THE KEY ESSENCE OF MY PROOF
Infinitely Recursive input on HP Proofs
comp.theory Mar 11, 2017, 3:13:03 PM peteolcott
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/NcFS02hKs1U/m/PlBF-1LRBAAJ

I actually inadvertently came up with it in this paper:
Self Modifying Turing Machine (SMTM) Solution to the Halting Problem
(concrete example) August 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example

No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I have
said:

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

Simulating halt decider H performs a pure simulation of its input as if
it was a UTM unless and until it detects an infinitely repeating
pattern. Then it aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to
its final reject state. Otherwise H transitions to its accept state when
its simulation ends.

The above is mapped to the conventional notion of non-halting sequences
of configurations in that they never reach their own final state.

> You are never going to get a paper on this topic published (published --
> not self-published). Whether you like it or not I am your target
> audience, along with anyone else here who will tell you that you are
> wrong[2]. That's why you are still replying to me despite having just
> said that you won't until I "fully address" whatever the latest junk
> idea was.
>
> Every single attempt you have made to undermine this simple theorem has
> been wrong. After almost 18 years of misunderstandings, daft ideas,
> deluded claims, doubling down and doubling back, there has not been a
> single idea that would get past a journal editor's joke pile. This
> includes the latest ridiculous misconception which I genuinely thought
> you might be able to overcome with a little coaching. But, no, you
> don't want to learn anything (though the offer remains open).
>
> With my human hat on, I really wish you would do something else. There
> is so much more to enjoy in the world. I know we share a love of dogs.
> I am learning to become a dog training instructor, and every week I get
> to work with dozens of owners and their amazing dogs. I love it. It's
> quite a change of style from academic computer science. Please consider
> some other use of your time.
>
> [1] Have you even read Linz's actual halting theorem proof yet? The
> proper one?
>
> [2] It's a curios fact that the one things that really annoys a Usenet
> crank is being agreed with. You'd think that all the Cantor deniers and
> Gödel refuters would get together a push a magnum opus (something they
> clearly can't do that on their own), but no. To paraphrase Tolstoy, all
> valid propositions are alike, but all crank ideas are wrong in their own
> particular way.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/3/2022 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 5:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 11:07 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz confuses himself my making the TM descriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at Linz's actual proof yet?  It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem 12.2, a page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further on from the one you seem to be obsessed by.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said my only reply to you will be to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating the key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points that you failed to address until you address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that sentence but it contains no hint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY from its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no, you have not looked at Linz's proof yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not going to answer patronising
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions. But by all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means ask me to tell you what a decider is, provided you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are prepared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use that definition (and terminology) in future exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you do not understand that deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perpetually insisting that the behavior a non-input Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with the halt status decision of embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are prepared to learn with an open mind, I can take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some exercises that will explain to you why this objection is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> groundless.  Of course, you can continue to spout nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- that's no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem for me -- but you claim to want to talk about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that involves understanding which strings to accept and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which reject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply ignored my proof of my point proving that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you ignore the proofs that you are wrong, AND a Liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most often your rebuttals are only confused gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your key mistake is not having the slightest idea of how
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders work even though I have explained it
>>>>>>>>>> many hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You keep thinking that if a simulating halt decider must abort
>>>>>>>>>> its simulation to report that its input specifies a
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations that this makes this
>>>>>>>>>> input halt and thus the reported non-halting wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above specifies an infinite loop even when its simulation
>>>>>>>>>> has been aborted to report "infinite loop".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't the decider aborting that makes H^ Halting, it is H
>>>>>>>>> going to H.Qn that makes H^ non-halting (since H^ x will always
>>>>>>>>> go to H^.Qn and halt if H x x goes to H.Qn)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I have said many dozens of times now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
>>>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt
>>>>>>>> decider must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the
>>>>>>>> infinite simulation of this input that this input specifies an
>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basic GIGO. (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start with the wrong definition, you get the wrong asnwers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is NOT the right definition for Halting, and unless you can
>>>>>>> actually PROVE that this has been accepted by a reputable source,
>>>>>>> that you hae taken it from, it is just PROOF that you WHOLE logic
>>>>>>> argument is unsound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is self-evidently correct,
>>>>>> that you deny this is because it is over your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Self-evident' is NOT valid proof in formal logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we extend formal logic using something like Montague Grammar of
>>>> natural language semantics the common English meaning of
>>>> "self-evident" becomes {semantic tautology}.
>>>>
>>>> Ordinary logic (as it was changed after Aristotle's syllogism) is
>>>> not sufficiently expressive to encode semantics directly, it needs
>>>> model theory to help with this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't get to change the logic.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, yes I do.
>> When logic diverged from Aristotle's syllogism it ceased to be a
>> consistent system of correct reasoning.
>>
>
> Nope, Aristotle doesn't control the meaning of logic in Mathemetics (or
> in fact in ANY branch that doesn't accept it).
>

On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a categorical
>>>> error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>
>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>
>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>
>>
>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>>
>
> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
> admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.

I will make my terms purely generic:

When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
language.

The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.

>
> Thus that statement is a LIE, which seems to be your natural langugage.
>
> When in a technical field, you must use the TECHNICAL meaning of the
> words, or you are likely incorrect.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/3/2022 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 7:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>>>>>> points.
>>>>>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>>>>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>>>>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about.  Of
>>>>>>> course you
>>>>>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they
>>>>>>> were new
>>>>>>> mistakes!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are
>>>>>> incorrect on
>>>>>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
>>>>>> you are not my target audience.
>>>>>
>>>>> By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
>>>>> this simple theorem over 17 years ago.  17 years.  How long can on
>>>>> paper
>>>>> take to finish?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to make my proof so clearly correct that it is fully
>>>> understood before it is rejected out-of-hand on the basis of its
>>>> subject matter.
>>>>
>>>> I still need to learn more about computable functions. None of the
>>>> theory of computation textbooks go into the same depth that others
>>>> here refer to. I was not sure that a RASP computable function could
>>>> know its own machine address until André's explanation.
>>>
>>> So you ADMIT you don't know the basic meaning of things in the
>>> Theory, but you have made claims based on things that you claim are
>>> obvious by 'The meaning of the words' that include these terms.
>>>
>>
>> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and still
>> be construed as a computation in computer science.
>
>
> The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't have
> 'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to design a RASP
> machine that takes as an input the description of another arbitrary
> computation. (This is the same problem you 'H' program has).
>
>>
>> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
>> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>>
>
> Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.
>

I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do not
understand that halt deciders are deciders.

>
>>>>
>>>> THIS IS THE KEY ESSENCE OF MY PROOF
>>>> Infinitely Recursive input on HP Proofs
>>>> comp.theory  Mar 11, 2017, 3:13:03 PM  peteolcott
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/NcFS02hKs1U/m/PlBF-1LRBAAJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I actually inadvertently came up with it in this paper:
>>>> Self Modifying Turing Machine (SMTM) Solution to the Halting Problem
>>>> (concrete example)  August 2016
>>>
>>> Which shows you don't understand how Turing Machines work. Turing
>>> Machine have no way to 'access' there code to make the changes.
>>>
>>
>> I pointed to this paper as the origin of the key element of my current
>> proof.
>>
>>> Also, they don't NEED to change there code, they just need a
>>> 'state-bit' to decide on each of the options they might be able to
>>> reprogram themselves with.
>>>
>>> Your description (from what I remember) actually needed an 'external
>>> agent' to actually make the sort of changes you wanted to do, and
>>> thus, you actually need to fold that external agent into the Turing
>>> Machine to make it back into an actual computation, and then it fails
>>> to have that 'magical' property of not being able to be 'outwitted'
>>> by a machine using it.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I
>>>> have said:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Which is the WRONG definition.
>>>
>>
>> It is an unconventional new definition that maps to the original
>> definition thus is provably equivalent.
>>
>
> Nope, not equivalent. If it WAS equivelent it would give the same answer
> for H^ applied to <H^>, which it doesn't.
>
> Shows you don't even know the meaning of 'Equivalent'

They both define the same set of non-halting elements.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/3/2022 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/3/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 7:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about
>>>>>>>>>> evaluating new
>>>>>>>>>> points.
>>>>>>>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>>>>>>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>>>>>>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about.  Of
>>>>>>>>> course you
>>>>>>>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they
>>>>>>>>> were new
>>>>>>>>> mistakes!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are
>>>>>>>> incorrect on
>>>>>>>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken
>>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>>> you are not my target audience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
>>>>>>> this simple theorem over 17 years ago.  17 years.  How long can
>>>>>>> on paper
>>>>>>> take to finish?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to make my proof so clearly correct that it is fully
>>>>>> understood before it is rejected out-of-hand on the basis of its
>>>>>> subject matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still need to learn more about computable functions. None of the
>>>>>> theory of computation textbooks go into the same depth that others
>>>>>> here refer to. I was not sure that a RASP computable function
>>>>>> could know its own machine address until André's explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you ADMIT you don't know the basic meaning of things in the
>>>>> Theory, but you have made claims based on things that you claim are
>>>>> obvious by 'The meaning of the words' that include these terms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not know that a RASP function can know its own address and
>>>> still be construed as a computation in computer science.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem you are going to run into is that RASP machines don't
>>> have 'input' as generally constructed. This makes it harder to design
>>> a RASP machine that takes as an input the description of another
>>> arbitrary computation. (This is the same problem you 'H' program has).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have proven that I have refuted the halting problem proofs
>>>> categorically. I only need to perfect my use of terminology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not 'Perfect', first you need to learn the basics of the terminology.
>>>
>>
>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>>
>
> I have never said anything against H being a decider, just that the
> function it computes is not the halting function.
>
> You keep on quoting some made up rule that somehow the behavior of H^
> applied to <H^> can't be the basis of the correct answer for H applied
> to <H^> <H^> since it isn't what the 'input' is.
>

It is not any made up rule. You just proved that you have woefully
insufficient understanding of deciders.

When they compute the mapping from their input finite strings to an
accept or reject state IT HAS TO BE THE ACTUAL FREAKING INPUT.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/3/2022 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a
>>>>>> categorical error. What I pointed out is categorically true.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
>>> admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.
>>
>>
>> I will make my terms purely generic:
>>
>> When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
>> necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
>> apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
>> expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
>> language.
>>
>> The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.
>
> Right, to PROVE something, you need to use VALID logic on PROVEN premises.
>
> This does NOT mean that something can't be true even if it is not provable.
>
> Truth and Provable are different concepts.
>
> Remember, not all Truths in Mathematics are Analytic Truths, so not all
> Truths are Provable.
All truths in mathematics are entirely based on relations between
expressions of language.

There are only two kinds of truth:
(1) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language
(2) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language and
sensory stimulus.

Thus provable only verifies two types of things:
(1) The relation between expressions of language exists.
"A dog is an animal." is true

(2) The relation between expressions of language and sensory stimulus
exists. "I am not hearing a dog bark right now." is true
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/4/2022 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-03-03 14:58:15 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-03 03:13:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> We make it even simpler a decider is required to compute the mapping
>>>> from its finite string input to an accept or reject state.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, as Linz' Definition 12.1 does not use the word "decider" and
>>> does not require that the solution to the halting problem be a decider.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>> All halt deciders are deciders.
>
> The definition 12.1 does not say so.
>
> Mikko
>

It does not have to say this for this to be true.

The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning. In fact, it is
lamentable that Sipser chose the terms decider and recognizer, since
they seem to confuse students.

Intuitively, a decider should be a Turing machine that given an input,
halts and either accepts or rejects, relaying its answer in one of many
equivalent ways, such as halting at an ACCEPT or REJECT state, or
leaving its answer on the output tape.
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/84433/what-is-decider

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision
problem is a problem that can be posed as a yes–no question of the input
values. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be
impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct
yes-or-no answer. The halting problem is an example: it can be proven
that there is no algorithm that correctly determines whether arbitrary
programs eventually halt when run.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/4/2022 9:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 7:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2022 5:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not about rehashing old points this is about evaluating new
>>>>>> points.
>>>>> The eternal refrain of the Usenet crank: talk to me about this new
>>>>> nonsense; forget I ever said that old nonsense.
>>>>> My posts will be about whatever I want them to be about. Of course you
>>>>> will ignore all your old mistakes -- you ignored them when they were new
>>>>> mistakes!
>>>>
>>>> I have proven that your rebuttals from six months ago are incorrect on
>>>> the basis of a better analysis. It is OK if you want to chicken out,
>>>> you are not my target audience.
>>>
>>> By my reckoning, you first claimed to have refuted every proof[1] of
>>> this simple theorem over 17 years ago. 17 years. How long can on paper
>>> take to finish?
>>>
>>
>> I have to make my proof so clearly correct that it is fully understood
>> before it is rejected out-of-hand on the basis of its subject matter.
>
> Your recent work will be rejected out of hand if you are clear, because
> it will be clear that you are not talking about the halting problem. If
> you find a way of describing it that is so convoluted that it's not
> immediately clear, it will be rejected because it's too vague.
>
> It's possible that, as below, you accidentally do end up talking about
> the halting problem. Then your work will be rejected because that
> question is settled. In this case, to get out of the editor's joke
> pile, you would have to show a flaw in every proof, and you have not
> even read Linz's proof (the real one, not the one presented, rather
> sloppily in my opinion, for historical interest) let along all the
> others.
>
> Attacking proofs raises an even bigger problem for you: you don't know
> what a proof is. You still think that if {A} ⊦ X, then {A,~A} ⊬ X so
> there is really nothing you can do in terms of the existing proofs that
> won't be "joke pile" ready from the get-go.
>
>> I still need to learn more about computable functions. None of the
>> theory of computation textbooks go into the same depth that others
>> here refer to.
>
> Have you actually read a book on this topic? There's no sign that you
> have. You didn't even know what a function was a few months ago.
>
>> No one has actually pointing out any error in the essence of what I
>> have said:
>
> At least three people have done exactly that. Many times. And quite a
> few more than three over the 17 years you've been trying to say
> something original on this topic. What you mean is that you ignore or
> don't understand the errors being pointed out to you.
>
>> 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.
>
> Let me point out the error yet again: this is not the halting problem.
>
>> 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)
>
> Writing "Linz 1990:317" make it look like you are quoting Linz, but this
> is not a direct quote.
>
>> 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
>
> "UTM(⟨M⟩, w) reaches the final state of M" if, and only if, "M halts on
> input w" so your conditions are correct, and the same as Linz's.
>
> This is the halting problem, pointlessly reworded in terms of a UTM so
> you should be able to write out the rest of the proof using the
>
> Of course, your rewording is technically wrong because you don't do
> details, but unless you want to be taken 100% literally at your word, I
> don't think they stop you being understood.
>
> But you don't want to be understood to be talking about Linz's simple
> conditions -- you want to talk about the problem with the "revised
> criteria" that is not the HP. That puts you in a bind. Talk about the
> HP and you have to find flaws in proofs you can't understand. Talk
> about your other problem, and no one will care.
>

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Thus a halt decider would compute the mapping from its input finite
strings to an accept or reject state on the basis of whether or not the
finite string pair specifies a computation that halts.

All sequences of configurations that never reach their final state are
not computations that halt.

When a sequence of configurations would never reach their final state in
any finite number of steps of pure simulation then this sequence of
configurations specify non-halting behavior.

The criterion measure shown below defines the set of configurations that
never reach their final state.

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.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/4/2022 9:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>
> Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
> not on. It's despicable and you should stop doing it.
>

When you would actually directly address the point at hand you have no
rebuttal because it is correct.

Thus you must always dodge the point at hand so that it superficially
looks like you have provided a rebuttal to gullible fools that aren't
hardly paying any attention.

THIS IS THE POINT AT HAND
It is the case that all deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
input finite strings to an accept or reject state thus everything that
is not an input finite sting is out-of-scope for the decider.

This shows that embedded_H must compute the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an
accept or reject state and is not allowed to report on the behavior of
the computation that contains itself Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

> [1] To pick a couple out of many:
>
> "I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
> Ĥ.qx ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide
> the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."
>
> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
> Ĥ) input pair. I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
> should not take very long. The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
> fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/4/2022 11:36 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/4/2022 9:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>>>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>>>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>>> Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
>>> not on. It's despicable and you should stop doing it.
>>
>> When you would actually directly address the point at hand you have no
>> rebuttal because it is correct.
>
> What are you waffling about now? Of course a halt decider (were such a
> thing to exist) would be a decider. Your lie is that neither I nor
> Richard have ever said what claim. Continuing to lie about what people
> claim is despicable. You've done it before. You will probably keep
> doing it.
>
>> THIS IS THE POINT AT HAND
>
> By which you mean this the current distraction from 17 years of
> uncorrected mistakes.
>
>> It is the case that all deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
>> input finite strings to an accept or reject state thus everything that
>> is not an input finite sting is out-of-scope for the decider.
>
> Apart form the bad wording, no one has ever objected to that.
>
>> This shows that embedded_H must compute the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an
>> accept or reject state and is not allowed to report on the behavior of
>> the computation that contains itself Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Nonsense. First off, this is a silly use of language -- a TM is not
> "allowed" or "not allowed" to do anything. A TM+input entails a
> sequence of configurations determined solely by the state transition
> function and the input. They have do not need permission for anything,
> and permission can not be withdrawn about anything.
>
> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entail the same sequence of
> configurations up to qn or qy. If embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* qy ⊦ oo then
> H accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. If embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* qn then H rejects ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
It seems that all you have is one dishonest dodge or another. I have not
been speaking about H for many months so when you bring it up now it is
a direct dodge of the point at hand.

When embedded_H computes the mapping from its input finite string pair
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ inputs to an accept or reject state it does this on the basis of
the behavior specified by this finite string pair: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and not on
the basis of the behavior of the computation that contains itself: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Your failure to understand this proves that you do not sufficiently
understand how deciders work.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/4/2022 5:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/4/2022 11:36 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/4/2022 9:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that all deciders compute the mapping from their input finite
>>>>>> strings to an accept or reject state. You and Ben prove that you do
>>>>>> not understand that halt deciders are deciders.
>>>>> Lying about technical matters is one thing[1], but lying about people is
>>>>> not on. It's despicable and you should stop doing it.
>>>>
>>>> When you would actually directly address the point at hand you have no
>>>> rebuttal because it is correct.
>>> What are you waffling about now? Of course a halt decider (were such a
>>> thing to exist) would be a decider. Your lie is that neither I nor
>>> Richard have ever said what claim. Continuing to lie about what people
>>> claim is despicable. You've done it before. You will probably keep
>>> doing it.
>>>
>>>> THIS IS THE POINT AT HAND
>>> By which you mean this the current distraction from 17 years of
>>> uncorrected mistakes.
>>>
>>>> It is the case that all deciders ONLY compute the mapping from their
>>>> input finite strings to an accept or reject state thus everything that
>>>> is not an input finite sting is out-of-scope for the decider.
>>> Apart form the bad wording, no one has ever objected to that.
>>>
>>>> This shows that embedded_H must compute the mapping from ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to an
>>>> accept or reject state and is not allowed to report on the behavior of
>>>> the computation that contains itself Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. First off, this is a silly use of language -- a TM is not
>>> "allowed" or "not allowed" to do anything. A TM+input entails a
>>> sequence of configurations determined solely by the state transition
>>> function and the input. They have do not need permission for anything,
>>> and permission can not be withdrawn about anything.
>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entail the same sequence of
>>> configurations up to qn or qy. If embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* qy ⊦ oo then
>>> H accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. If embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* qn then H rejects ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> It seems that all you have is one dishonest dodge or another. I have
>> not been speaking about H for many months so when you bring it up now
>> it is a direct dodge of the point at hand.
>
> Of course you are not speaking about H. You are wrong about H so you
> must try to not talk about it anymore. Ironically it's you that want me
> to dodge this issue: if I can't talk about H, you condemn me to do
> nothing but dodge the key point -- that H is wrong.
>
>> When embedded_H computes the mapping from its input finite string pair
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ inputs to an accept or reject state it does this on the basis
>> of the behavior specified by this finite string pair: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> Sign. I wish you could get the details right. It would allow a
> discussion of the big mistakes. embedded_H has no accepting state.
>

embedded_H does indeed have an accept state, Ĥ.qy still exists even
though it has been broken by the appended infinite loop.

> Anyway, I can't tell you why you are wrong because I must not talk about
> H. Great -- that simplifies my replies a lot.
>
>> and not on the basis of the behavior of the computation that contains
>> itself: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Fortunately for you, you have banned me from telling you why this is
> wrong!
>

WHICH FACTS DO YOU DISAGREE WITH?
(a) It is the case that deciders compute the mapping ONLY from their
inputs to an accept or reject state.

(b) It is the case that deciders DO NOT compute the mapping from
non-inputs to anything.

(c) It is the case that the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
would never reach the final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn in any finite number of steps.

>> Your failure to understand this proves that you do not sufficiently
>> understand how deciders work.
>
> I know why you are wrong, but if I told you I would, apparently, be
> dodging something! Enjoy your ignorance. If it gets tedious, the offer
> to explain remains open...
>

If my reasoning is incorrect then a flaw could be pointed out. If it is
impossible to point out any error in my reasoning then this proves that
it is correct.

To avoid this challenge you simply change the subject to fool the
gullible into believing that you provided a rebuttal. Gullible fools
never notice that a rebuttal has no supporting reasoning as long as it
does have seemingly convincing rhetoric.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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