Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke

devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
+* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|`* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
| `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|  `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
|   `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|    `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
|     `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|      `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
|       `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|        +* N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?)olcott
|        |+* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Fred. Zwarts
|        ||`* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?olcott
|        || +* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Fred. Zwarts
|        || |`* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?olcott
|        || | +* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Fred. Zwarts
|        || | |+- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Fred. Zwarts
|        || | |`* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?olcott
|        || | | +- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?immibis
|        || | | `- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Richard Damon
|        || | `- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Richard Damon
|        || `- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Richard Damon
|        |+* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Richard Damon
|        ||`* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?olcott
|        || `- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Richard Damon
|        |`* Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?immibis
|        | `- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?Richard Damon
|        `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
|         `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|          +* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
|          |`- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremRichard Damon
|          `- Re: N to ∞ steps of D correctly simulated H never halt (Finally the right words?immibis
+* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremFred. Zwarts
|+- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremolcott
|+- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremAndy Walker
|`* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremMike Terry
| +* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [-intuitions proved correct-]olcott
| |`- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [-intuitions proved correct-]immibis
| +* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremimmibis
| |`* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability TheoremMike Terry
| | `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |  +- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]immibis
| |  `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |   `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |    `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |     `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |      `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |       `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |        `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |         `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |          `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |           `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |            `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |             `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |              +- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]immibis
| |              `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |               `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |                `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| |                 +- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |                 `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]olcott
| |                  `- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]Richard Damon
| `* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [-Mike Terry commits libel-]olcott
|  `- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [-Mike Terry commits libel-]immibis
+- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theoremimmibis
`* Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [too stupid]olcott
 `- Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [too stupid]Richard Damon

Pages:123
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52758&group=comp.theory#52758

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:26:09 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:26:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="49b7e82edb782e6747a38b605b130dba";
logging-data="1199469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TshCZGuKrOJ2iMubJwE00"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C77zDsUHRk6HrRN1XXJq/xFmquM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
 by: olcott - Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:26 UTC

On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean
>>>>>>> he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>>>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered,
>>>>>>> since that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some
>>>>>>> argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous
>>>>>>> complexity and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
>>>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D)
>>>>>> does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it
>>>>>> does not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does
>>>>>> not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>> does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it
>>>>>> was correct!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim
>>>>> is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
>>>>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
>>>>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>
>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>
>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>> sci.logic
>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>>>  > …
>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>  >
>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>
>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Proven otherwise
>>>
>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>
>> That is libelous.
>
> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>
>>
>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>
> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>
>>
>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>
> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>
>>
>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>
>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>
>>
>
> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting Problem,
> but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual requirements of
> the halting problem.
>
> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>
> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>
> Thus, your claims are all LIES.

You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52759&group=comp.theory#52759

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 16:58:14 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:58:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2467936"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:58 UTC

On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean
>>>>>>>> he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
>>>>>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered,
>>>>>>>> since that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some
>>>>>>>> argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous
>>>>>>>> complexity and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
>>>>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D)
>>>>>>> does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that
>>>>>>> it does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does
>>>>>>> not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>>> does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it
>>>>>>> was correct!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim
>>>>>> is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants to
>>>>>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
>>>>>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>
>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>
>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>>> sci.logic
>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>>>>  > …
>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>  >
>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or
>>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>
>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>
>>> That is libelous.
>>
>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>
>>>
>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>
>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>
>>>
>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>
>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>
>>>
>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>
>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting Problem,
>> but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual requirements of
>> the halting problem.
>>
>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>
>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>
>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>
> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>

Really?

Lying again.

Look up at the quotes:

>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows your
stupidity.

YOU deflected this sub thread from its topic of Tarski to Halting in
your reply to Mike yesterday.

So, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar.

Apology expected.

Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52760&group=comp.theory#52760

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:02:40 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 23:02:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1233182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2qikKF9bfrNEj5hhYHr5B"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6f2Smmq9CLVwp/JaRQpKYouKhrY=
In-Reply-To: <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 11 Feb 2024 23:02 UTC

On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>> he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that he's
>>>>>>>>> lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion)
>>>>>>>>> extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting his core
>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
>>>>>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D)
>>>>>>>> does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that
>>>>>>>> it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks
>>>>>>>> it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and
>>>>>>>> therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim
>>>>>>> is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who wants
>>>>>>> to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his
>>>>>>> thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky
>>>>>>> details...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>>>> sci.logic
>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>
>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>
>>>> That is libelous.
>>>
>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>
>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>
>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>
>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting Problem,
>>> but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual requirements
>>> of the halting problem.
>>>
>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>
>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>
>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>
>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>
>
>
> Really?
>
> Lying again.
>
> Look up at the quotes:
>
> >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
>
> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows your
> stupidity.
>

That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION

The Linz H is an entirely different template
The Linz H is an entirely different template
The Linz H is an entirely different template
The Linz H is an entirely different template

> YOU deflected this sub thread from its topic of Tarski to Halting in
> your reply to Mike yesterday.
>
> So, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar.
>
>
> Apology expected.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52761&group=comp.theory#52761

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:25:45 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 23:25:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2467935"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 11 Feb 2024 23:25 UTC

On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that
>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion)
>>>>>>>>>> extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting his core
>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
>>>>>>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that
>>>>>>>>> D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded
>>>>>>>>> that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it
>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and
>>>>>>>>> therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who
>>>>>>>> wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct
>>>>>>>> his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky
>>>>>>>> details...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>>>>> sci.logic
>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>
>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>
>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>
>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>
>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Lying again.
>>
>> Look up at the quotes:
>>
>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>>
>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows
>> your stupidity.
>>
>
> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION

But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.

So, H is there.

I guess you are just admitting you have just been lying for the past two
decades.

>
> The Linz H is an entirely different template
> The Linz H is an entirely different template
> The Linz H is an entirely different template
> The Linz H is an entirely different template
>

So, you admit that you are lying about trying to refute Linz?

I guess that puts two decades of work down the drain.

Why try to pull out of Linz's proof, if you admit your Ĥ isn't his?

>> YOU deflected this sub thread from its topic of Tarski to Halting in
>> your reply to Mike yesterday.
>>
>> So, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar.
>>
>>
>> Apology expected.
>

So, you doubled down on your lies.

PROOF that you are just the ignorant hypocritical pthological lying
idiot that you have been exposed to be.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52762&group=comp.theory#52762

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:11:32 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:11:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1251238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mR7fAwBntwc7wVR67mzKO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sLicy43fwdEdk5c9TLPZmu3euVI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
 by: olcott - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:11 UTC

On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that
>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's opinion)
>>>>>>>>>>> extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting his core
>>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems
>>>>>>>>>> to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that
>>>>>>>>>> D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott
>>>>>>>>>> responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and
>>>>>>>>>> therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone who
>>>>>>>>> wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct
>>>>>>>>> his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky
>>>>>>>>> details...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>>>>>> sci.logic
>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or
>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>
>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>
>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>
>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Lying again.
>>>
>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>
>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows
>>> your stupidity.
>>>
>>
>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>
> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>
> So, H is there.

No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)

Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52763&group=comp.theory#52763

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 19:33:27 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:33:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2467935"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:33 UTC

On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that
>>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting
>>>>>>>>>>>> his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems
>>>>>>>>>>> to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out
>>>>>>>>>>> that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone
>>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to
>>>>>>>>>> /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into all
>>>>>>>>>> the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>>>>>>> sci.logic
>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
>>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true
>>>>>>>>> or false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> Lying again.
>>>>
>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>
>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows
>>>> your stupidity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>
>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>
>> So, H is there.
>
> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>
> Top of page 3
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52764&group=comp.theory#52764

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 19:15:37 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:15:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1269077"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TqgL1+6LfpeeqaniehpuB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zTLgZJ4kTX9JYtr3Rr6y+CiV6mI=
In-Reply-To: <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:15 UTC

On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out
>>>>>>>>>>>> that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone
>>>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to
>>>>>>>>>>> /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into
>>>>>>>>>>> all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
>>>>>>>>>> sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
>>>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true
>>>>>>>>>> or false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows
>>>>> your stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>
>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>
>>> So, H is there.
>>
>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>
>> Top of page 3
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>
>
> So, you don't understand that


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52766&group=comp.theory#52766

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:37:03 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:37:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2467936"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:37 UTC

On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to
>>>>>>>>>>>> /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
>>>>>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true
>>>>>>>>>>> or false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>
>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>
>>>> So, H is there.
>>>
>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>
>>> Top of page 3
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't understand that
>
> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52768&group=comp.theory#52768

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 19:48:11 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 190
Message-ID: <uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1273521"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0sRO8GNEY5hbXVuPVeFSm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gaGpOr/qyJKiP6H2BC+CzlOvC24=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
 by: olcott - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:48 UTC

On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that
>>>>>>>>>>>> a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>>>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>
>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>
>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>
>>>> Top of page 3
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you don't understand that
>>
>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>
>
> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually understand
> what he is doing.
>
> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
> that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqbumh$174qt$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52771&group=comp.theory#52771

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 03:10:25 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <uqbumh$174qt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 02:10:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1553a00867971a247616cd299a749848";
logging-data="1282909"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HueRqp3xJ3rJ4XG9fdIM+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:npmXZREmb58wVt7+1qkHEJGTXpk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me>
 by: immibis - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 02:10 UTC

On 12/02/24 02:48, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that unanswered, since that might suggest to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers that he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or to /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the
>>>>>>>>>> actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>
>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>
>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>
>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually understand
>> what he is doing.
>>
>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
>> that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>
> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
> accurate.
>
How can a state be the same as a program?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52773&group=comp.theory#52773

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!panix!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:24:53 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 9500
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 02:24 UTC

On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that unanswered, since that might suggest to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers that he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or to /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the
>>>>>>>>>> actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>
>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>
>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>
>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually understand
>> what he is doing.
>>
>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
>> that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>
> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
> accurate.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52774&group=comp.theory#52774

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:56:06 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 213
Message-ID: <uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me> <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 02:56:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1419272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FWhli9wra5mcK60iVngA4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wVF3a7KLHRzd17BWd/aTuJO/C9w=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
 by: olcott - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 02:56 UTC

On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that unanswered, since that might suggest to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers that he's lost some argument.  So he ignores
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>>
>>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
>>> understand what he is doing.
>>>
>>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
>>> that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>>
>> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
>> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
>> accurate.
>>
>
> No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited" details
> represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
>
> Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
> infinite loop to qy)
>
> Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error.
>
> You are just showing your total ignorance.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52775&group=comp.theory#52775

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 22:24:59 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me> <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
<uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 03:24:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2467935"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 03:24 UTC

On 2/11/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other readers that he's lost some argument.  So he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
>>>> understand what he is doing.
>>>>
>>>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in
>>>> Ĥ that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>>>
>>> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
>>> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
>>> accurate.
>>>
>>
>> No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited"
>> details represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
>>
>> Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
>> infinite loop to qy)
>>
>> Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error.
>>
>> You are just showing your total ignorance.
>
> embedded_H refers to all of the states specified in his H template.
> two of these states have merely been renamed indicating that they
> have been integrated into Ĥ because H has been embedded in Ĥ.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqc5jj$1bsbs$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52777&group=comp.theory#52777

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 22:08:18 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 258
Message-ID: <uqc5jj$1bsbs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me> <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
<uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me> <uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 04:08:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1438076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sVZcFkdm9BG7DB0Wk2uDW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yLUbP16+z52y1lmJgHKO5cr8Xis=
In-Reply-To: <uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 04:08 UTC

On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other readers that he's lost some argument.  So he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>>>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>>>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
>>>>> understand what he is doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in
>>>>> Ĥ that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>>>>
>>>> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
>>>> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
>>>> accurate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited"
>>> details represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
>>>
>>> Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
>>> infinite loop to qy)
>>>
>>> Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error.
>>>
>>> You are just showing your total ignorance.
>>
>> embedded_H refers to all of the states specified in his H template.
>> two of these states have merely been renamed indicating that they
>> have been integrated into Ĥ because H has been embedded in Ĥ.
>
> Then why did you say it was just Ĥq0 that represented embedded_H?
>
>>
>> His two start states are wrong as Ben agreed to years ago.
>> No TM ever has two q0 states.
>
> No, there is q0 and Ĥq0
>
> Admittedly, his nomenclature is a bit awkward.
>
> The execution of the Machine Ĥ starts at the state q0 (as he defines q0
> to be the starting state of all machines) with the expresion
>
> q0 Wm
>
> Which means at state q0, with a tape contents of Wm
>
> It then goes through the steps to duplicate the tape and ends up at
> state Ĥq0 which is the Ĥ machine equivalent of H's q0, at an expression
>
> Ĥq0 Wm Wm
>
> Meaning at state Ĥq0 with tape contents Wm Wm
>
> and then (depending on the decision that H makes) to either
>
> Ĥ∞
>
> indicating that Ĥ doesn't halt or
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqc6v7$1bsbs$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52779&group=comp.theory#52779

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 22:31:34 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 258
Message-ID: <uqc6v7$1bsbs$3@dont-email.me>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me> <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
<uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me> <uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 04:31:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e20a5da71ec6739a94c224d7486109a";
logging-data="1438076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xFffrFssEBal4xKF1iOsq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qJlSCmT7xmITLr4IYcrVtFqeYXo=
In-Reply-To: <uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 12 Feb 2024 04:31 UTC

On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/11/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other readers that he's lost some argument.  So he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>>>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>>>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
>>>>> understand what he is doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in
>>>>> Ĥ that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>>>>
>>>> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
>>>> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
>>>> accurate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited"
>>> details represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
>>>
>>> Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
>>> infinite loop to qy)
>>>
>>> Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error.
>>>
>>> You are just showing your total ignorance.
>>
>> embedded_H refers to all of the states specified in his H template.
>> two of these states have merely been renamed indicating that they
>> have been integrated into Ĥ because H has been embedded in Ĥ.
>
> Then why did you say it was just Ĥq0 that represented embedded_H?
>
>>
>> His two start states are wrong as Ben agreed to years ago.
>> No TM ever has two q0 states.
>
> No, there is q0 and Ĥq0
>
> Admittedly, his nomenclature is a bit awkward.
>
> The execution of the Machine Ĥ starts at the state q0 (as he defines q0
> to be the starting state of all machines) with the expresion
>
> q0 Wm
>
> Which means at state q0, with a tape contents of Wm
>
> It then goes through the steps to duplicate the tape and ends up at
> state Ĥq0 which is the Ĥ machine equivalent of H's q0, at an expression
>
> Ĥq0 Wm Wm
>
> Meaning at state Ĥq0 with tape contents Wm Wm
>
> and then (depending on the decision that H makes) to either
>
> Ĥ∞
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits libel ]

<uqej1s$2fo7u$4@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=52835&group=comp.theory#52835

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem [ Mike Terry commits
libel ]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 21:10:04 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uqej1s$2fo7u$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <upobt8$3n92k$1@dont-email.me> <upqchh$861t$1@dont-email.me>
<nDudnSUk34yKu1X4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uq9e2h$8ngp$1@dont-email.me>
<mIqdncbM1v2GeFX4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<uqapia$1159f$2@dont-email.me> <uqb3ju$2ba30$7@i2pn2.org>
<uqb4ra$133m2$1@dont-email.me> <uqb5dr$2ba2v$1@i2pn2.org>
<uqbe1h$14jbd$1@dont-email.me> <uqbftm$2ba30$8@i2pn2.org>
<uqbjmg$15k8u$1@dont-email.me> <uqbl1p$2ba2v$2@i2pn2.org>
<uqbnnk$165t6$1@dont-email.me> <uqbp0n$2ba2v$3@i2pn2.org>
<uqbrfp$16nal$1@dont-email.me> <uqbsnv$2ba30$9@i2pn2.org>
<uqbtcr$16rlh$2@dont-email.me> <VjfyN.357018$xHn7.6615@fx14.iad>
<uqc1c7$1ba08$1@dont-email.me> <uqc32b$2ba2v$4@i2pn2.org>
<uqc6v7$1bsbs$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 02:10:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2613502"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uqc6v7$1bsbs$3@dont-email.me>
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 13 Feb 2024 02:10 UTC

On 2/11/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that enough, people will suddenly agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. That doesn't mean he agrees his previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other readers that he's lost some argument.  So he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further.  It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > PREMISES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > was defined to be impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > CONCLUSION:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actual requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, H is there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>>>>>>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Top of page 3
>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
>>>>>>> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
>>>>>>> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
>>>>>> understand what he is doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state
>>>>>> in Ĥ that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
>>>>> thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
>>>>> accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited"
>>>> details represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
>>>>
>>>> Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
>>>> infinite loop to qy)
>>>>
>>>> Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error.
>>>>
>>>> You are just showing your total ignorance.
>>>
>>> embedded_H refers to all of the states specified in his H template.
>>> two of these states have merely been renamed indicating that they
>>> have been integrated into Ĥ because H has been embedded in Ĥ.
>>
>> Then why did you say it was just Ĥq0 that represented embedded_H?
>>
>>>
>>> His two start states are wrong as Ben agreed to years ago.
>>> No TM ever has two q0 states.
>>
>> No, there is q0 and Ĥq0
>>
>> Admittedly, his nomenclature is a bit awkward.
>>
>> The execution of the Machine Ĥ starts at the state q0 (as he defines
>> q0 to be the starting state of all machines) with the expresion
>>
>> q0 Wm
>>
>> Which means at state q0, with a tape contents of Wm
>>
>> It then goes through the steps to duplicate the tape and ends up at
>> state Ĥq0 which is the Ĥ machine equivalent of H's q0, at an expression
>>
>> Ĥq0 Wm Wm
>>
>> Meaning at state Ĥq0 with tape contents Wm Wm
>>
>> and then (depending on the decision that H makes) to either
>>
>> Ĥ∞
>>
>
> All of the above is correct.
>
> *This improves on his notation making is more clear*
> q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0  ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞  // YES for M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts
Which is for H saying that M applied to (M) Halts, which if M is Ĥ it
doesn't


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor