On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>
> >>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>> configurations.
> >>>
> >>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>
> >> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >
> > And that same logic gives us this:
> >
> > That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> > state under any condition what-so-ever
> > IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> > and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> > configurations.
> >
> > THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> > THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >
> > Try to find an error in the above.
>
> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> are pure nonsense gibberish.

So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>? If not, explain why (this includes, if you think it's a strawman error, why it's a strawman error)