On 8/27/21 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/26/2021 7:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/26/21 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2021 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/26/21 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/26/2021 5:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/25/21 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/25/2021 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/25/21 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2021 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/21 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2021 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/21 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2021 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/21 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2021 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, becuase UTM(<H^>, <H^>) Halts, thus showing that since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says non-halting it was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was your last chance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You admit defeat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I acknowledge that you are an incorrigible jackass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The review process moves to phase two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What does that mean? You going to write the paper to submit to
>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to show anywhere whre my basic objections are
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You know full well that your "objections" are pure drivel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I, and everyone else who is reading this will see that what
>>>>>>>>>> I say
>>>>>>>>>> makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOUR statements are the 'pure drivel'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please note that basically no one belives your statements and
>>>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>>> thinks you are wrong. While it is possible that you have
>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> hidden secret, it is very unlikely. One key thing to ask
>>>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> grounds do I have to actually expect that I could come up with
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> insite like that that no one else beleives.
>>>>>>>>> Because of this my work is not getting an honest review. It is
>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>> that my work is not getting an honest review to anyone knowing the
>>>>>>>>> material very well that all of the "rebuttals" simply dodge
>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>> assessing my points and change to subject to some other points.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it HAS gotten an Honest review, and you just don't want to
>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>> it, because it shows how BAD your logic is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot correctly point to any actual mistake in the essence
>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>> proof. All you can do is talk in circles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean like the false assumption that H makes that the copy of H
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it is simulating will NEVER abort its simulation, when it is clear
>>>>>> that,
>>>>>> at least if H is a computation, that it will as another identical
>>>>>> copy
>>>>>> of the computation does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that if H waits for some other H to abort the
>>>>> simulation that every H waits for some other H to abort the simulation
>>>>> and the simulation is never aborted because every H has the exact same
>>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if you change EVERY H
>>>
>>> H is required to be a single machine or the HP proof is not refuted.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, H is *A* machine, so it has a SPECIFIC definition, SPECIFIED BEFORE
>> YOU GET INTO THE PROOF.
>>
>
> The key detail that everyone left out that was unspecified because no
> one else ever thought it all the way through is what happens when H is a
> simulating halt decider.
>

Because it doesn't make a difference, as the definition of Halting
doesn't care about how you make the decision, only what the decision is
an what the machine actually does,

>> Thus, every time YOU talk about a change to H, you just broke the rules
>> of the proof and have to start over.
>>
>
> Bullshit is was never specified that H is not a simulating halt decider.

H is a SPECIFIED Halt Decider. Change the specifications, and everything
you have previously determined about H^ is no longer valid.

>
>> When you posit questions about if H ..., you are outside the proof. Any
>> of your if H ... must be a factual Truth Bearer (or is illogical).
>>
>> If H doesn't abort the simulation, well that statement is either TRUE,
>> or it is FALSE. IF it is True, that decision has consequences, like H
>> won't answer the question H(<H^>,<H^>). If it is false, you make an
>> error if you perform logic assuming it never does.
>>
>
> We can see that a hypothetical H that never aborts its simulation never
> halts because its input never halts, therefore H is correct to abort its
> simulation and report that its input never halts.

But if H is a Halt decider that does abort, your hypothetical H that
doesn't is non-existant at best or a logical contradiction.

The behavor of the Hn^ based on the Hn that doesn't abort tells you
NOTHING about the behavior of the Ha^ that is based on the Ha that does.

That is like your 'proof' that cats bark that you did by using a dog
instead of a cat and asked what if the dog was a cat.

>
>> Also, you statement about if H waited long enough for some other copy of
>> it to make its decision is basically a null set for your design. Since
>> the H inside will take just as long to make its decision as the H doing
>> the simulation, to figure out how long it needs to simulate is like
>> finding the answer to the problem find an X that is greater than X+1,
>> there is no such number, so their can't be a machine with your type of
>> algorithm that can simulate long enough to simulate a copy of itself
>> making the same decision.
>>
>
> This is the key part that must be beyond your intellectual capacity.
>
> Not at all. We can see that this infinite recursion criteria is met:
>
> Infinite recursion detection criteria:
> If the execution trace of function X() called by function Y() shows:
> (1) Function X() is called twice in sequence from the same machine
> address of Y().
> (2) With the same parameters to X().
> (3) With no conditional branch or indexed jump instructions in Y().
> (4) With no function call returns from X().
> then the function call from Y() to X() is infinitely recursive.

UNSOUND LOGIC. Assumption that H never aborts when it does.

FAIL.

>
> and on the basis abort the simulation of the input.
>
>> Note, this doesn't say that Halting Problem is a bad problem, just that
>> this particular method doesn't work. It just so happens that we know
>> that ANY method we come up with won't be able to work, because the job
>> has been proven to be impossible.
>>
>
>