Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Spock: We suffered 23 casualties in that attack, Captain.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7879&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7879

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:12:25 -0600
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:12:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<As2dnSSEINq06pT_nZ2dnUU7-eednZ2d@giganews.com>
<wVeOJ.35102$41E7.19078@fx37.iad>
<A-CdnSMdYfQZHZT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hmfOJ.40926$Wdl5.7730@fx44.iad>
<L8qdnc1PnZ_-EpT_nZ2dnUU7-RWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%ihOJ.13496$GjY3.10711@fx01.iad>
<ZcGdnXE1gbY6PJT_nZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<geiOJ.14278$jwf9.6136@fx24.iad>
<BtednRZDAaNQUZT_nZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ClrOJ.19559$dln7.7346@fx03.iad> <suglil$dkp$1@dont-email.me>
<9SWOJ.25849$OT%7.13821@fx07.iad>
<2eCdnSMfgqk3zZH_nZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x%YOJ.23052$r6p7.18939@fx41.iad>
<puCdnTpdoMGz-5H_nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <suhopv$uq5$1@dont-email.me>
<f_ZOJ.38447$Lbb6.13870@fx45.iad>
<JoidnTLhHMtA7JH_nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 651
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HiYUgsacnJL0+ieCtfZXgbo8+5wiI9rE8J0AlQiY3T0oRIi7uezpQuq0G2c1VxdvzPAdB0C76JUvVEJ!m4dOG1tGhLQqxwx6rjuaFFD7HfHa9WC/DbzHIhU8tg8H1nJZUdonGy3icI8O8PnjFKO/CcbBEwYX
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 41090
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:12 UTC

On 2/16/2022 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/22 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/22 7:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2022 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/22 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/22 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2022 5:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 3:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 1:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2022 5:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/22 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:57 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 5:39 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 8:41 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 9:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2022 6:49 AM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/22 12:01 AM, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 10:50 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 11:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:58 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:52 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 6:17 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 7:10 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/22 10:20 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 5:36
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 11:39
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:20 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22 10:58
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:02 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:18 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > I explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you CLAIM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, but use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVEN TO BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE ENTIRELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ON THE BASIS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OF THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEANING OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITS WORDS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pure UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been shown, by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method of H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if H <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn then H^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a UTM, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also have that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ (we only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU qre
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the definioon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how to build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^, embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST be EXACTLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm as H,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop appended to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its Ĥ.qy state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and H is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appended to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qy state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is OUTSIDE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the algorithm of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't affect the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Q0 to Qy/Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider bases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision on whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same inputs the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. A string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yields false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it can't, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be a COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ALL copoies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same input leads to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same Output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an exact copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it IS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is being called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input. embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strcmp(H, embedded_H != 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'representation' of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself to use to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that comparison, so that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just more of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fairy Dust Powered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unicorn stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can very easily have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation of itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that only requires that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has access to its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, Turing Machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DON'T have access to their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own machine description,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless it has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that this was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are agreeing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can't? Or do you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am agreeing that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicted yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How, by saying that the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way a Turing Machine can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a copy of its representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is for it to be given (and H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is defined in a way that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be given as an extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making H and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't part of the copy of H in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^, it is something ADD to it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which only has/affects behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFTER H makes its decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another words hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples get you so confused you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally lose track of everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What 'Hypothetical' are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean when I say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you hardly pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the hypothetical that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No appended infinite loop making H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I redefine Ĥ to become Ḧ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminating its infinite loop, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably mean: {I redefine Ĥ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become Ḧ by eliminating its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does what? Since if you aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about Linz's H^, your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't mean anything for the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It provides a bridge of understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to my HP refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key skill that I have applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout my career is eliminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "inessential complexity" (1999 Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> award winner Fred Brooks) to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   enormously difficult problems as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you eliminate KEY ASPECTS then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you aren't talking about what you need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like learning arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before attacking algebra.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It lays the foundation of prerequisites
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for my actual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just beware that if you make a statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is only true for a limited case and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't explicitly state so, pointing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out is NOT a 'Dishonest Dodge'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it is know that you are working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to prove that a Unicorn exists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are saying WILL be looked at in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light anticipating where you are going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also remember that showing a rule happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be correct for one case, doesn't prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will be for a different case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have gone through all of this before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it came for nothing, but if this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how you want to spend your last days,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knock yourself out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you already understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path is never taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩ an equivalent computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ḧ.q0 ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qx ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as seems common with your arguments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you keep on forgetting the CONDITIONS on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ <H^> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.q0 <H^> -> H^.Qx <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qy -> ∞ IF and only if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qx <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn If and ohly if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> <H^> => H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you stipulate that H <H^> <H^> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H.Qy, then the behavior on that path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be changed with no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the If and only if clauses, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial description is incorrect because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT H won't go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qy for either version, then changing H^ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H" that omits to loop is an equivalence,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but ONLY under that stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This of course shows that H will be wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about H", as H" will ALWAYS Halt if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers, and H not answering is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Thus H will either be wrong for not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering or giving the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only making two versions of input to H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Ĥ WITH an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Ḧ WITHOUT an appended infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only this is being examined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the conclusion that H" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equivalent' to H^ is only true (if you mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent in the sense that they compute the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same function) if it is the case that neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H <H^> <H^> or H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you want to indicate some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of 'equivalent' you using (that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be proper to do so here), you need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the conditions under which the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, embedded_H / H need to transition to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state in H, not some other machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as we append an infinite loop to H.y is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it no longer H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where you are showing your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE has said that the machine where we added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the loop is still the machine H, in fact, Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls that machine H', but H' CONTAINS a complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of H, and that copy will still act exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the original H to the point where it gets to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stat Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This ability to compose machines of copies of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other machines is basically like the concept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling subroutines (even if it is implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differently) and is fundamental to the design and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of Turing Macines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have a problem saying the subroutine H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no longer the subroutine H if one function just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H and returns while a second calls H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditionally loops? Yes, the whole program is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H, but the subroutine H is still there and will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave exactly like it used to in both of the cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to map a Turing Machine to ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software is to think of the Q0 state (or whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the 'starting' state of the Turing machine) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entry point for the function, and the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States of the Turing Machine as retrun stateents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which return a value indicating what state the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine ended in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the modifications Linz has done to H are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more that building H^ as mostly a call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H, with code before the call to manipulate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape to add the second copy, and code after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return to loop forever if H returns the 'Halting'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Machine/Subroutine H has not been touched at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is equivalent to Ḧ ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And my point is that they are only equivalent in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal sense of the word if neither of H <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and H <H"> <H"> go to H.Qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without that qualification, it is a false statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are equivalent in that neither can possibly go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their q.y state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is incorrect without the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification/assumption/stipulation, the H doesn't go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Qy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H was a white cat detector and you presented H with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a black cat would it say "yes" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't talking about a 'detector'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure we are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know what you are talking about (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing your dishonesty by your clipping).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THe claim that H^ and H" are equivilent machines has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTHING to do with there being a 'Detector' but do they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behave exactly the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are disavowing that both ⟨Ĥ⟩ and ⟨Ḧ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a copy of H embedded within them ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt detector is the same idea as a halt decider yet a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt detector need not get every input correctly. Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that the halt detector gets correctly is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of the computable function that it implements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they have a copy of the Halt Detector H in them, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you are willing to stipulate that H will not go to
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qy when given H^ or H" as an input, then you can not show
>>>>>>>>>>>> that those machines are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulating halt decider H cannot possibly go to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> on a specific input then any such stipulation would be
>>>>>>>>>>> redundant for this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So why do you resist it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with stipulating as a requirement something you
>>>>>>>>>> 'know' to be true?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason I can see for you to object to listing that
>>>>>>>>>> requirement. is that at some point you are going to want to
>>>>>>>>>> violate that requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Specifically because it was redundant.
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not take a genius to know that when
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qn
>>>>>>>>     embedded_H transitions to H.qn it does not transition to H.qy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, are you stating as a fact that embedded_H <H^> <H^> and
>>>>>>> embedded_H <H"> <H"> both as a matter of DEFINITION go to H.Qn?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For H to be correct then on the above specified inputs they must
>>>>>> both go to H.qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by DEFINITION that is the WRONG answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> DEFINITION of a Correct Halt Decider:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) H <M> w goes to H.Qy if M w Halts, and to H.Qn if M w never Halts.
>>>> I am only talking about these two:
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⟨Ḧ⟩ ⊢* Ḧ.qn
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> Whenever any embedded_H must abort the simulation of its input to
>>>> prevent the infinitely nested simulation of this input the entire
>>>> nested simulation sequence specifies infinitely nested simulation.
>>>> This makes a transition to H.qn necessarily correct in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, the NESTED simulation, but NOT the H^ / H" that is USING that
>>> embededeed_H, and it is THAT machine that defines the CORRECT answer
>>> for H.
>>>
>>
>> That problem is that you are flat out wrong about this.
>> embedded_H IS NOT REPORTING ON ITS OWN BEHAVIOR
>> THUS NOT REPORTING ON Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>
> Then it is NOT a Halt Detector. PERIOD. BY DEFINITON.

Not at all. The only thing that it proves is that you persistently fail
to understand that all deciders are only accountable for their actual
inputs. int Sum(3,5) is not accountable for Sum(7,3).

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

SubjectRepliesAuthor
o Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]

By: olcott on Sun, 6 Feb 2022

57olcott
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor