On 5/19/2021 9:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-05-19 20:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/19/2021 8:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-05-19 19:08, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2021 7:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-05-19 18:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/2021 7:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-05-19 18:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2021 7:19 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-05-19 18:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2021 6:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-05-19 17:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2021 6:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-05-19 16:28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2021 5:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-05-19 13:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2021 2:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-05-19 11:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truism(1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Input: [Ĥ] to Ĥ([Ĥ]) would never halt unless is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that a 'truism'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we know that H_Hat(H_Hat) does in fact halt as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidenced by how it behaves when *not* run in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified simulator, this would better be described as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'falsism'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stopping at first big mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That wasn't a mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree that the definition of the Linz Ĥ on page 319
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I agree with the Linz definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would specify infinitely nested simulation to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider of Linz Ĥ @Ĥq0  wM  wM  (the second q0 start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of Ĥ)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when this internal halt decider is based on simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't agree with the above because it makes no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. Please rephrase it without using the word 'would'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0  wM  ⊢*  Ĥ.qx  wM  wM  ⊢*  Ĥ.qy  ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0  wM  ⊢*  Ĥ.qx  wM  wM  ⊢*  Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no conditions such that the input [Ĥ] to Ĥ([Ĥ])
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts besides the condition that the internal halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ Ĥ.qx terminates its simulation of [Ĥ].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And so what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreement or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why didn't you just read the remainder of my post where I
>>>>>>>>>>> explained my position. I said that if H_Hat(H_Hat) didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> terminate the simulation of its input, then it would be an
>>>>>>>>>>> _entirely different_ computation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the freaking hypothetical instance where the embedded copy
>>>>>>>>>> of H @ Ĥ.qx never terminates the simulation of its input [Ĥ]
>>>>>>>>>> would this simulation ever terminate?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can go at the 1,000 times if that what it takes.
>>>>>>>>>> We do not move forward until we have mutual agreement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't agree to something which is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That 'hypothetical instance' doesn't exist unless we change H
>>>>>>>>> to an entirely different computation. It's no different from
>>>>>>>>> asking about the hypothetical instance where sqrt(9) returns 4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not like this at all. It is mathematically projecting
>>>>>>>> execution trace of different encodings of an algorithm on the
>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does 'different encodings of an algorithm' mean in this
>>>>>>> context?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exact same algorithm, except non-halting inputs are not
>>>>>> aborted, that line-of-code is commented out.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a 'different encoding of an algorithm'. That is a
>>>>> different algorithm altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree that the definition of the Linz Ĥ on page 319
>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
>>>>
>>>> specifies infinitely nested simulation to the internal halt
>>>> decider of Linz Ĥ @Ĥq0 wM wM (the second q0 start state of Ĥ)
>>>> when this internal copy of H is based on simulating its input and it
>>>> does not abort the simulation of this input?
>>>
>>> Why exactly do you think that if you ask the same question over and
>>> over again that my answer is going to change?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> I changed the question. If I have to change the words to get mutual
>> agreement I will and I did. We cannot move to any other steps of the
>> conversation until we have mutual agreement on the now changed wording.
>
> Linz's H_Hat is defined in relation to H. So if you consider a program
> where the 'internal H' does not abort the simulation of this input',
> then you are no longer talking about H_Hat, but about some other
> computation, in which case you can not call it H_Hat nor make inferences
> about H_Hat based on it.
>
> André
>

Truism(1a)
The simulation of [Ĥ] by its simulating halt decider Ĥ would never halt
unless this simulation is aborted.

Truism(1b)
(1a) is another way of saying that when the copy of H at Ĥ.qx only
simulates its input [Ĥ] its input never halts.

Any input running under a simulating halt decider that never aborts its
input will have the same behavior as an input run under a simulator.

This [simulating halt decider] is not decider in the technical sense,
because it never halts. The fact that it never halts proves that its
input is not halting.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein