On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, 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 !!!
>
> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.

If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.

STFU about H !!!

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.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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