An Olcott machine is a Turing machine whose initial tape always ends
with four spaces, its own description, and another four spaces.

To convert an Olcott machine into a Turing machine, follow these steps:
1. Write down the description of the Turing machine.
2. Start from a blank machine with the same alphabet, plus a separate
blank symbol if there isn't one (this is needed to detect the end of the
tape).
3. Add a state that goes to the end of the tape. This is the start
state. When it detects a blank symbol it goes to the next state.
4. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
5. Add a series of states that write the description onto the tape and
move right.
6. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
7. Add a state that goes to the beginning of the tape.
8. Then add the states and transitions from the Olcott machine.

This Turing machine always gives the same answer as the Olcott machine
when the input is the same (Olcott cannot show that it does not).
If the Olcott machine is correct, this Turing machine is also correct
because it gives the same answer.
If the Turing machine is incorrect, so is the Olcott machine because it
gives the same answer.

The Linz proof proves that some of the answers this Turing machine gives
are incorrect. Since the Olcott machine gives the EXACT SAME ANSWERS,
some of the answers the Olcott machine gives are also incorrect.

Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
do that.

*Turing equivalence*
A Turing-complete system is called Turing-equivalent if every function
it can compute is also Turing-computable; i
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_definitions

On 3/8/2024 12:17 PM, immibis wrote:
> An Olcott machine is a Turing machine whose initial tape always ends
> with four spaces, its own description, and another four spaces.
>
> To convert an Olcott machine into a Turing machine, follow these steps:
> 1. Write down the description of the Turing machine.
> 2. Start from a blank machine with the same alphabet, plus a separate
> blank symbol if there isn't one (this is needed to detect the end of the
> tape).
> 3. Add a state that goes to the end of the tape. This is the start
> state. When it detects a blank symbol it goes to the next state.
> 4. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
> 5. Add a series of states that write the description onto the tape and
> move right.
> 6. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
> 7. Add a state that goes to the beginning of the tape.
> 8. Then add the states and transitions from the Olcott machine.
>
> This Turing machine always gives the same answer as the Olcott machine
> when the input is the same (Olcott cannot show that it does not).
> If the Olcott machine is correct, this Turing machine is also correct
> because it gives the same answer.
> If the Turing machine is incorrect, so is the Olcott machine because it
> gives the same answer.
>
> The Linz proof proves that some of the answers this Turing machine gives
> are incorrect. Since the Olcott machine gives the EXACT SAME ANSWERS,
> some of the answers the Olcott machine gives are also incorrect.

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

And every Olcott machine has an equivalent Turing Machine, as he
described, so no Olcott machine computes something that there isn't a
Turing Machine that computes the same thing.

PERIOD.

You are proved to be a stupid liar that doesn't understands what they
are talking about.

On 3/8/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
> do that.
>
> *Turing equivalence*
> A Turing-complete system is called Turing-equivalent if every function
> it can compute is also Turing-computable; i
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_definitions
>
> On 3/8/2024 12:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> An Olcott machine is a Turing machine whose initial tape always ends
>> with four spaces, its own description, and another four spaces.
>>
>> To convert an Olcott machine into a Turing machine, follow these steps:
>> 1. Write down the description of the Turing machine.
>> 2. Start from a blank machine with the same alphabet, plus a separate
>> blank symbol if there isn't one (this is needed to detect the end of
>> the tape).
>> 3. Add a state that goes to the end of the tape. This is the start
>> state. When it detects a blank symbol it goes to the next state.
>> 4. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
>> 5. Add a series of states that write the description onto the tape and
>> move right.
>> 6. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
>> 7. Add a state that goes to the beginning of the tape.
>> 8. Then add the states and transitions from the Olcott machine.
>>
>> This Turing machine always gives the same answer as the Olcott machine
>> when the input is the same (Olcott cannot show that it does not).
>> If the Olcott machine is correct, this Turing machine is also correct
>> because it gives the same answer.
>> If the Turing machine is incorrect, so is the Olcott machine because
>> it gives the same answer.
>>
>> The Linz proof proves that some of the answers this Turing machine
>> gives are incorrect. Since the Olcott machine gives the EXACT SAME
>> ANSWERS, some of the answers the Olcott machine gives are also incorrect.
>

Wrong.

Olcott machine can compute no function that SOME Turing Machine can not
compute.

After all, there is nothing PREVVENTING from giving the machine the data
if it needs it.

If the mpping for the computation doesn't allow that input, then Olcott
machines must be PROVEN to not use it.

And, you still haven't explained why your claim that they can detect ALL
(or even most) recursion isn't a lie based on my refutation of it.

You are just admitting to being an ignorant liar.

In the H / H^ pair, neither H or H^.H can detect that the pair create in
infinite recursion pattern, so you claim is disproven.

On 3/8/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
> do that.
>
> *Turing equivalence*
> A Turing-complete system is called Turing-equivalent if every function
> it can compute is also Turing-computable; i
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_definitions
>
> On 3/8/2024 12:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> An Olcott machine is a Turing machine whose initial tape always ends
>> with four spaces, its own description, and another four spaces.
>>
>> To convert an Olcott machine into a Turing machine, follow these steps:
>> 1. Write down the description of the Turing machine.
>> 2. Start from a blank machine with the same alphabet, plus a separate
>> blank symbol if there isn't one (this is needed to detect the end of
>> the tape).
>> 3. Add a state that goes to the end of the tape. This is the start
>> state. When it detects a blank symbol it goes to the next state.
>> 4. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
>> 5. Add a series of states that write the description onto the tape and
>> move right.
>> 6. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
>> 7. Add a state that goes to the beginning of the tape.
>> 8. Then add the states and transitions from the Olcott machine.
>>
>> This Turing machine always gives the same answer as the Olcott machine
>> when the input is the same (Olcott cannot show that it does not).
>> If the Olcott machine is correct, this Turing machine is also correct
>> because it gives the same answer.
>> If the Turing machine is incorrect, so is the Olcott machine because
>> it gives the same answer.
>>
>> The Linz proof proves that some of the answers this Turing machine
>> gives are incorrect. Since the Olcott machine gives the EXACT SAME
>> ANSWERS, some of the answers the Olcott machine gives are also incorrect.
>

On 8/03/24 20:04, olcott wrote:
> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
> do that.

And yet I have just proven how every Olcott machine always produces the
exact same result in all situations whatsoever as a Turing machine.

>
> *Turing equivalence*
> A Turing-complete system is called Turing-equivalent if every function
> it can compute is also Turing-computable; i
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_definitions
>
> On 3/8/2024 12:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> An Olcott machine is a Turing machine whose initial tape always ends
>> with four spaces, its own description, and another four spaces.
>>
>> To convert an Olcott machine into a Turing machine, follow these steps:
>> 1. Write down the description of the Turing machine.
>> 2. Start from a blank machine with the same alphabet, plus a separate
>> blank symbol if there isn't one (this is needed to detect the end of
>> the tape).
>> 3. Add a state that goes to the end of the tape. This is the start
>> state. When it detects a blank symbol it goes to the next state.
>> 4. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
>> 5. Add a series of states that write the description onto the tape and
>> move right.
>> 6. Add four states that write spaces and move right.
>> 7. Add a state that goes to the beginning of the tape.
>> 8. Then add the states and transitions from the Olcott machine.
>>
>> This Turing machine always gives the same answer as the Olcott machine
>> when the input is the same (Olcott cannot show that it does not).
>> If the Olcott machine is correct, this Turing machine is also correct
>> because it gives the same answer.
>> If the Turing machine is incorrect, so is the Olcott machine because
>> it gives the same answer.
>>
>> The Linz proof proves that some of the answers this Turing machine
>> gives are incorrect. Since the Olcott machine gives the EXACT SAME
>> ANSWERS, some of the answers the Olcott machine gives are also incorrect.
>

On 3/9/2024 7:09 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 8/03/24 20:04, olcott wrote:
>> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
>> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
>> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
>> do that.
>
> And yet I have just proven how every Olcott machine always produces the
> exact same result in all situations whatsoever as a Turing machine.
>

*You contradicted yourself*
On 3/9/2024 7:47 AM, immibis wrote:
> It's accepted that the Linz proof doen't work on
> Olcott machines because the Linz proof is designed
> for Turing machines.

Olcott machines derive the correct answer for the Linz
Turing machine description templates when they are executed
as Olcott machines.

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

On 9/03/24 16:20, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2024 7:09 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 8/03/24 20:04, olcott wrote:
>>> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
>>> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
>>> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
>>> do that.
>>
>> And yet I have just proven how every Olcott machine always produces
>> the exact same result in all situations whatsoever as a Turing machine.
>>
>
> *You contradicted yourself*
> On 3/9/2024 7:47 AM, immibis wrote:
> > It's accepted that the Linz proof doen't work on
> > Olcott machines because the Linz proof is designed
> > for Turing machines.
>
> Olcott machines derive the correct answer for the Linz
> Turing machine description templates when they are executed
> as Olcott machines.
>

Well yeah, duhhh, the proof doesn't work for Olcott machines because
it's designed for Turing machines.

On 3/9/2024 9:36 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 9/03/24 16:20, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/9/2024 7:09 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 8/03/24 20:04, olcott wrote:
>>>> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
>>>> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
>>>> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
>>>> do that.
>>>
>>> And yet I have just proven how every Olcott machine always produces
>>> the exact same result in all situations whatsoever as a Turing machine.
>>>
>>
>> *You contradicted yourself*
>> On 3/9/2024 7:47 AM, immibis wrote:
>>  > It's accepted that the Linz proof doen't work on
>>  > Olcott machines because the Linz proof is designed
>>  > for Turing machines.
>>
>> Olcott machines derive the correct answer for the Linz
>> Turing machine description templates when they are executed
>> as Olcott machines.
>>
>
> Well yeah, duhhh, the proof doesn't work for Olcott machines because
> it's designed for Turing machines.

That is great. Richard wanted to remain in rebuttal mode
and not give an inch on anything.

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

On 3/9/24 7:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2024 7:09 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 8/03/24 20:04, olcott wrote:
>>> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
>>> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
>>> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
>>> do that.
>>
>> And yet I have just proven how every Olcott machine always produces
>> the exact same result in all situations whatsoever as a Turing machine.
>>
>
> *You contradicted yourself*
> On 3/9/2024 7:47 AM, immibis wrote:
> > It's accepted that the Linz proof doen't work on
> > Olcott machines because the Linz proof is designed
> > for Turing machines.
>
> Olcott machines derive the correct answer for the Linz
> Turing machine description templates when they are executed
> as Olcott machines.
>

The EXACT Template that Linz uses, won't work on Olcott Machines.

The Semantic Meaning of the Template, when translated for Olcott Machine
DOES Work.

H^ needs to use its copy of H giving it the EXACT same tape as it will
have when it is actually started by the master UTM.

H^ can do this, as has been shown, therefore that copy of H will, BY
NECESSITY, give the exact same answer as your top level H, and thus can
make that top level H wrong.

You somehow think that H can tell the difference between:

H (H^) (H^) <H>
and

H^.H (H^) (H^) <H>

Because yo just don't understand how algorithms and computations work.

You confuse specifactions and the operation of the algorithm.

The algorithm of H^.H doesn't HAVE to abort, it will only abort if it is
so programmed.

It can't meet its specification unless it aborts, but then it won't meet
it specifcation to give the right answer for the behaior of the machine
that it has been given the description of (itself).

So, this proves that NO ALGORITHM for H can satify its specifications,
and thus the specifiction are of an uncomputable mapping, and no machine
exists as a Halt Decider.

On 3/9/24 8:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2024 9:36 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 9/03/24 16:20, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2024 7:09 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 8/03/24 20:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Wrong. Olcott machines compute functions that Turing machines do not
>>>>> compute. Every Olcott machine can correctly determine when it is
>>>>> about to simulate a copy of itself. Turing machines cannot always
>>>>> do that.
>>>>
>>>> And yet I have just proven how every Olcott machine always produces
>>>> the exact same result in all situations whatsoever as a Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You contradicted yourself*
>>> On 3/9/2024 7:47 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>  > It's accepted that the Linz proof doen't work on
>>>  > Olcott machines because the Linz proof is designed
>>>  > for Turing machines.
>>>
>>> Olcott machines derive the correct answer for the Linz
>>> Turing machine description templates when they are executed
>>> as Olcott machines.
>>>
>>
>> Well yeah, duhhh, the proof doesn't work for Olcott machines because
>> it's designed for Turing machines.
>
> That is great. Richard wanted to remain in rebuttal mode
> and not give an inch on anything.
>

Just means it has to be adapted, as I described, for Olcott machines.

You just spiked the ball on the two yard line on your way in and fumbled
out of the end zone.