On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> 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⟩
>>>
>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>> is not a halting computation.
>
> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.

Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
its input.

If {an X is a Y} then when {Z says} that {an X is a Y} Z is necessarily
correct.

{an X is a Y} = "the input to embedded_H is non-halting."
{Z says} = "embedded_H rejects its input."

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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