On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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

Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.

You are working in the wrong field.

>
> (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.

Right, you can stipulate for THIS discussion, that when you use this
term 'y' it mans 'x'. What you can't do is then apply ANYTHING you have
'said' about that term 'y' to other areas, as you weren't talking about
that other y.

Otherwise:

I STIPULATE THAT Peter Olcott is an IDIOT and doesn't know a thing about
logic.

My proof is then done. You are an idiot.

You don't get to 'stipulate' what is the meaning of truth or of core
concepts in a field and have anything you say after that have any impact
on the field. All you have done is 'proven' that if Computation Theory
was redefined to mean something other than what it actually means, you
can prove that halting might be decidable. That doesn't affect what the
REAL Computation Theory says.

THAT is just fallacious.

FAIL.

You are just PROVING that nothing you have said has ANY real meaning to
the world of logic and mathematics as it only applies in your made up world.