On 4/7/2022 1:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> 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,
>>> I have done no such thing.
>>
>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different
>> results from the same input, yes you have.
>
> Liar !!!
>

What I am actually saying is STFU about H.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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