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