On 4/7/22 3:57 PM, 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 any God damned thing in the universe that
> says otherwise is a God damned liar.
>
>

Except that if embedded_H <H^> <H^> -> Qn, then <H^> <H^> specifies a
HALTING sequnce of configurations. You just don't understand that
because your mind is too full of POOP to think about what Halting
actually means.

FAIL.