On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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;
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.

If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat is
the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer