On 4/10/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>> mentioned it.
>>
>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able
>> to explain exactly how to determine that.
>
> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>

Says the person with ZERO reputation.