On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > 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,
> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.

So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same, and seem to have indicated that a simulating halt decider H is the sole source of truth for whether or not its input halts.

This means that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5> because it is the sole source of truth regarding its input, and that there is no number of finite steps in the correct simulation of <N><5> that can possibly reach its final state of <N.qy> under any condition whatsoever within the scope of Ha3 applied to <N><5>. This does not contradict that N applied to <5> halts because it is a non-finite string non-input to Ha3.

This also means that Ha7 (which simulates for 7 steps) is correct to accept <N><5> because its input does reach a final state of <N.qy>. This also demonstrates that Ha3 <N><5> and that Ha7 <N><5> each specify a different sequence of configurations and therefore can have different results.

Agreed?