On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already
> defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the
> rules of Formal Logic.
(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

(2) A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
of argument or discussion in a given context. ...
Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or
"incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

The above is the ultimate foundation of truth.

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