On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>
STFU about it.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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