On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Because embedded_H is the same as H (which you implicitly agree due to your lack of proof otherwise), the same input can be given to another simulating halt decider to validate the correctness of H and that restricting the correctness criteria to embedded_H only does not apply. Hb, which simulates for k more steps than an H which aborts its input (which we'll call Ha, and by extension we'll refer to H^ as Ha^), Hb simulates <Ha^><Ha^> to its final state of <Ha^.qn>. This demonstrates that the input does reach a final state in some condition, and that Ha (what you call H), and therefore embedded_H, does not perform a correct simulation because it aborts too soon.