On 2/16/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/22 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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).
>>
>
> And you don't understand that the 'behavior of its input' is what the
> machine its input represents would do with the input provided.

There is not misdirection of any "represents" to it.
It is what the input actually does, its actual behavior.

Olcott's Theorem
If a simulating halt decider H must abort the simulation of any input to
prevent the infinite simulation of this input then it is always correct
for H to transition to its reject state on this input.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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