On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> 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

Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations any God damned thing in the universe that
says otherwise is a God damned liar.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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