On 4/11/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/11/22 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/11/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:59:41 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:48 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:01:53 UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the notation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overrides all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires learning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded in Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> will HALT if the
>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is embedded in H^ aborts its simulation and goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and Halting is not the Non-Halting that an H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn is
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it is self-evident that H is wrong, since the input
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>>> what it said it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, self-evident can be tricky or you can persuade
>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself that
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that is wrong is actually true. That gives rise to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the errors
>>>>>>>>>>>> like the self-evident truth the Achilles can't pass the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tortoise that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Zeno was able to show 'self-evidently'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that Zeno was fully aware that Achilles would overtake
>>>>>>>>>>> the tortoise.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Greeks staged regular athletics competitions, and he must
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> observed a faster runner overhaul a slower one.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he saw 'reality' but he also saw the 'self-evident' proof
>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't happen!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus PROVING that 'self-evident' isn't actually a valid form
>>>>>>>>>> of argument.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also shows that PO doesn't actually understand what
>>>>>>>>>> epistemology
>>>>>>>>>> means with that statement, which isn't strange since he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> understand a lot of things that are clearly stated because he
>>>>>>>>>> filters
>>>>>>>>>> reality through his POOP colored glasses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whilst I don't know much about Zeno's thought except the
>>>>>>>>> basics, he
>>>>>>>>> was probably trying to work out the nature of a mathematical
>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>> The Greeks had started to develop mathematical proofs, but they
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> fully understand what they were. So a "proof" of a manifest
>>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>>> was of interest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's actually harder than it first appears to say what
>>>>>>>>> constitutes a proof.
>>>>>>>>> So whilst individual proofs are taught at high school level,
>>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>>> are not usually taught how to set out a proof formally. And of
>>>>>>>>> course they
>>>>>>>>> are not expected to develop their own proofs. That's why someone
>>>>>>>>> without a maths degree can struggle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A proof is merely the set of necessary consequences derived from
>>>>>>>> true premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and in a FORMAL Logic, like Mathematics, the ONLY things
>>>>>>> that can be taken as 'True Premises' are the defined AXIOMS and
>>>>>>> DEFINITIONS, and those things that can be proven from them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and it is the same situation when we formalize natural
>>>>>> language semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus your 'from the meaning of the words' are not true, as the
>>>>> MEANING of the words 'halting' are ONLY based on the behavior of
>>>>> the machine the input represents,
>>>>
>>>> In this you are flatly incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL SIMULATED INPUT is BY
>>> DEFINITON the results of applying an ACTUAL UTM to that input which
>>> matches the behavior of the machine it represents.
>>
>> The SHD applies an actual UTM to its input until it has complete proof
>> that this simulation would never end.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't, because by DEFINITION, if it is a UTM, it doesn't abort
> its simulation, thus your SHD would never get control back to abort.

On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle
detector.
> You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a
"modified
> UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is
reasonable.
> And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the
infinite cycle
> detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset
of non-
> halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it
can't
> be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat
construct
> will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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