On 2/25/2024 12:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/25/24 7:33 AM, immibis wrote:
>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting problem is
>> unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>
>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not proven
>> unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is written in a
>> different language from the language of the program it's supposed to
>> be deciding.
>
> Which just shows he doesn't understand the actual problem, likely
> because he has only heard it described by people who don't understand
> that problem.
>
> The key point is the actual Problem isn't described in terms of
> "Programs", but Turing Machines (or Equivalents) so the "different
> language" issue can't come up.
>
>

Hence my Turing Machine template adapted from Linz
proves that Stoddart and Hehner were right all along.

Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt

Ȟ cannot transition to a value corresponding to its own behavior
because Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ was intentionally defined to contradict
every value that Ȟ returns.

Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ is self-contradictory and those that disagree
have proven to be liars.

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

On 2/25/24 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 12:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/25/24 7:33 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> ... and he has no doubt that the Turing Machine halting problem is
>>> unsolvable, which apparently contradicts what Olcott thinks he thinks.
>>>
>>> His most relevant belief is that the halting problem is not proven
>>> unsolvable in cases where the halting decider is written in a
>>> different language from the language of the program it's supposed to
>>> be deciding.
>>
>> Which just shows he doesn't understand the actual problem, likely
>> because he has only heard it described by people who don't understand
>> that problem.
>>
>> The key point is the actual Problem isn't described in terms of
>> "Programs", but Turing Machines (or Equivalents) so the "different
>> language" issue can't come up.
>>
>>
>
> Hence my Turing Machine template adapted from Linz
> proves that Stoddart and Hehner were right all along.

Except that Turing Machine TEMPLATES aren't valid input for the Halting
Question.

You are just proving your ignorance of the subject.

And just proving that the POOP question (which apparently can use
templates) in incorrect.

>
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qy ∞ // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ halts
> Ȟ.q0 ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⊢* Ȟ.qn // Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ does not halt
>
> Ȟ cannot transition to a value corresponding to its own behavior
> because Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ was intentionally defined to contradict
> every value that Ȟ returns.
>
> Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩ ⟨Ȟ⟩ is self-contradictory and those that disagree
> have proven to be liars.
>

Nope, YOU are proven to be a LIAR, and have confessed to it by refusing
to answer the refutations made against your "logic", thus abandoning it.