On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>
>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if it's input reaches a final state?
>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>
> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the same input?

I am saying that H is off topic bitch.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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