On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> 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.

In other words, you have no example of embedded_H and H being different, so you implicitly accept that they are the same, and H is therefore on topic because it is the same as embedded_H. That implicit acceptance will stand unless/until you can provide an example of embedded_H and H giving different results.

So to clarify, H is the sole source of truth for whether or not its input halts?