On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
>>>>> my paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>> premise.
>>>>
>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can
>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>
>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>
>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground,
>>>> but these statements have not been shown to be provable or
>>>> disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>
>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it
>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction
>>> that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>
>>
>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.
>
> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on
> the basis of their meaning.

WRONG. Formal; system transcend simple meaning of words by precisely
defining there concepts, and restricting their discussion to just that
precisely defined concepts.

You can extend a system by adding new precisely defined concepts, but
even if the 'ordinary' meaning of words imply relationships, they are
not just established by that meaning in the system, but must actually be
PROVED by its logic.

In one sense, yes, you go by the meaning of the words, but the only
words that have meaning are the ones formally defined in the system.

>
> By what means can any analytic expression of language be correctly known
> to be true besides semantic tautology (defined below)?
>
> It is either known to be true by definition:
> Dogs are defined to be animals.
> Or is is known to be true by sound deductive inference:
> (1) Dogs are defined to be animals.
> (2) Animals are defined to be living things.
> ∴ Dogs are living things.
>
> The proof of what I say is that no counter-example exists.
>

FALSE. (Not to your tautology, but to the statement that the semantic
tautology proves your point).

I suppose then you must the argree that Russell's Teapot must exist
since you can't prove it doesn't? There is no 'counter-example' to the
statement that it exists.

The issue is your 'claim' to the halting problem fails on several grounds.

For H to be a Halting Decider, it must have a fixed predefined finite
algorithm, and thus the discussion of what might happen if it was
defined differently (and thus the input defined differently) isn't
applicable.

Also, you use the term 'sumulator', but the only 'simulator' in
computation theory that mets your requirements is precisely the UTM, but
the UTM also has built into its definition the neccesary condition that
it will not 'abort' its simulation, thus your H that does abort its
'simulation' is NOT what Computation Theory talks of as a 'simulator'.

You claim a number of things must exists, like a finite set of finite
patterns that can be compared agaisnt to universally detect non-halting
behavior. Such a claim of existance needs to be combined with an actual
PROOF that it does, not just that it seems it must (and in fact, I have
shown you a proof that it does not).

Over all, you have shown yourself to be a below-average logician who
fails in the basic knowledge of the art. Perhaps you can make a somewhat
persuasive argument in the philosophical reaches of logic where
formalism isn't required. Places where they do debate things like what
is Truth, sometimes to the point of objecting to the fact that reality
exists.

You do NOT seem to have what it takes to make an actual acceptable proof
in the Formal Systems that you are attempting. I am not sure you even
really understand what a formal system is and how to work in one.

Remember, the key component of a Formal System is an initially defined
set of Truths, the basics that are accepted as True, and are only added
on to by Formally manipulating those know True things to prove other
statements.

You don't get to assert that something else 'must be true' by the
meaning of the words, unless that meaning is an actual Formal Definition
that has been accepted in the system. You DON'T get to 'redefine'
existing facts, like the definition of Halting, and what that ACTUALLY
means in the system.

Turing Machines are embodiments of algorithms into a precise computation
structure.

A Turing Machine applied to an input Halts if, and only if, when that
machine is applied to that input it reaches a terminal state in a finite
number of steps, and failure to halt is only true if it will NEVER reach
such a state for all numbers of finite steps.

We can prove an equivalent definition with a UTM, but something is only
a UTM if it continues is simulation FOREVER and never stops.

Things that have been proven in Computation Theory include things like
all embodiments of a given algorithm, when given the same input will
yield the same output, and the ligitimacy of composing multiple
algorithms together into a unified algorithm and thus a unified Turing
Machine.

This means that to make the Turing Machine H, you first need to actually
FIX you algorithm into a definite fixed sequence of steps, and once you
do that it is possible to create the H^ algorithm that embedded the H
algorithm inside of it, that algorithm MUST behave identical to the
'freestanding' H when given the same input.

This means you arguement that embedded_H isn't exactly H is bogus, by
the rules of construction there IS an exact copy of the algorithm of H
in H^ that has been composed with other actions, but the algorithm of H
has not been touched, and so will behave exactly the same.

By the construction, if H applied to <H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn, then H^
appied to <H^> will use its copy of H applied to <H^> <H^> and see that
H went to H.Qn so H^ goes to H^.Qn and Halts.

Since the DEFINITION of the correct answer to a Halt Decider is that H
applied to <M> w only goes to H.Qn if M applied to w NEVER Halts, the
fact that H^ applied to <H^> is shown to Halt if H applied to <H^> <H^>
goes to H.Qn, says that H applied to <H^> <H^> going to H.Qn is NOT
correct, but instead it should have gone to H.Qy which is what it is
supposed to do if its input represents a Halting Computation.

All your arguements that this isn't what happens just shows that you
don't understand the actual FORMAL meaning of the words you are using.

FAIL.