On 2/17/22 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

But then you are no longer doing the Halting Problem.

>
> 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 isn't the Halting Problem, so it fails to show what you want.

>
> 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.
>

But this criteria, if you are being HONEST and using the proper
defintions shows that H is incorrect in going to H.Qn, as if H goest to
H.Qn, then H^ also goes to H^.Qn and Halts, and thus UTM(<H^>,<H^>) is
seen to reach its final state, and thus H needed to go to H.Qy.

Thus H going to H.Qn is NEVER correct for H <H^> <H^>, with H^ built by
the formula of Linz.

FAIL.