On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual English words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS by the
>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being asked to decide
>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>
>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>
>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if it doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting problem, as the
>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the Halting Problem.
>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of halting, it includes
>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine cannot reach its
>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>
> Sounds like a NDTM.
>
> The Halting Problem has a definite, commonly recognized meaning. It refers to a
> real machine, no ambiguity, no one can change it, not even Linz.
> Your halt-problem is absolutely certain not Linz's, or of any? textbook.
> Your claim contradicts experimental truth. Otherwise, show your x86utm operating
> system proof. I guess you would say xxx thousands pages, I believe there are
> only few lines are yours. Show your codes.
>

You did not even read what I said before you claimed that it was
incorrect. The general principles that I outlined below directly apply
to the actual Linz proof:

If I am incorrect in anything that I said below then the specific error
could be pointed out.

>> The halting problem does not bother to mention the requirement that
>> because all halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
>> computing the mapping from their finite string inputs to an accept or
>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by this input.
>>
>> The halting problem does not specifically examine simulating halt
>> deciders, none-the-less the behavior of a correctly simulated machine
>> description is known to be equivalent to the behavior of the direct
>> execution of this same machine.
>>
>> Since a simulating halt decider is merely a UTM for simulated inputs
>> that reach their final state when a simulating halt decider correctly
>> determines that its simulated its input cannot possibly reach its final
>> state this is complete proof that this simulated input never halts.
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>> Arthur Schopenhauer

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