On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>
> >>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>
> >>> Yep.
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>
> >> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>
> >> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >
> > Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> a halting computation.
>
> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> intuition.
>
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩

Or if you believe that's correct, you must also believe that when Ha3 is applied to <N><5> that the simulated <N> cannot possibly reach its own final state of <N.qy> then that proves that it is not a halting computation.

SHOW ME WHERE <N> TRANSITIONS to <N.qy>