On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> 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>?
> >> It has no associated meaning
> >
> > Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >
> > That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> correct halt deciders.
>
> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.

So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?