On 4/10/22 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't,
>>>>>>>> I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own
>>>>>> logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm
>>>>>> playing head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>
>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>
>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit
>>>> that it is not.
>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>
>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>
>> Dishonest dodge.
>>
>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that.  Tell
>> us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt
>> decider gives is correct.
>
> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> have proof that this simulation would never end.
>

Then why does H stop before it has an actual proof that the correct
simulation would never end?

Only by looking at the WRONG simulation can you make your arguement,
which means it is based on a false premise and thus is UNSOUND.

FAIL.