On 4/7/22 5:51 PM, 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⟩
>

Show us where embedded_H ever gave an answer.

If it doesn't, then the non-halting of H^ doesn't matter.