#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef int (*ptr)();

int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{ x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
return 1;
}

// Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
int P(ptr x)
{ H(x, x);
return 1; // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
}

int main(void)
{ H(P, P);
}

Computation that halts
a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
(Linz:1990:234)

[PSR_set] Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
For every H of H(P,P) where P(P) calls this same H(P,P) and H simulates
or executes its input and aborts or does not abort its input.
∀H ∊ PSR_set ∀P ∊ PSR_set (Input_Never_Halts(H(P,P)))
[PSR_subset_A] ∃H ∊ PSR_set ∃P ∊ PSR_set (Halts( H(P,P) ))
[PSR_subset_B] ∃H ∊ PSR_set ∃P ∊ PSR_set (Halts( P(P) ))

[PSR_subset_C] The subset of the PSR_subset_A where H returns 0 on the
basis that H correctly detects that its input never halts (reaches its
final instruction). H could detect that its simulated P is calling
H(P,P) with the same parameters that it was called with, thus specifying
infinite recursion.

H is a computable function that accepts or rejects inputs in its domain
on the basis that these inputs specify a sequence of configurations that
reach their final state.
H is a correct decider and H has a correct halt deciding basis.

*(see page 3)*
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2)

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/22/2021 7:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-22 18:16, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 7:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-22 17:13, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2021 5:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And this bit is particularly mystifying:
>>>>>
>>>>>  > PSR_set: for n = 0 to ∞
>>>>>  > {
>>>>>  >    (Input_Never_Halts(  Hn(Pn,Pn)  ))
>>>>>  >    (Sometimes_Halts(  Hn(Pn,Pn)  ))
>>>>>  >    (Sometimes_Halts(   Pn(Pn)  ))
>>>>>  > }
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Numbered elements of the infinite set of finite string C encodings
>>>> of H and P. The source-code that I provided is the (H0, P0) element.
>>>
>>> That wasn't the mystifying part despite it being a strange abuse of
>>> syntax. I assumed this was just a deranged way of writing ∀n rather
>>> than being a syntactically ill-formed C program, though why you
>>> continuously insist on inventing your own undefined notation is
>>> beyond me.
>>>
>>> How can the input of Hn(Pn, Pn) never halt when Pn(Pn) sometimes halt?
>>
>> The input to Hn(Pn,Pn) never reaches its final state.
>> For some of these exact same Pn(Pn) P does reach its final state.
>
> Which goes back to Richard's question which you refused to answer: What
> does Input_Never_Halts mean?
>
> The input to a halt decider is a *string*. The input can't halt. It also
> can't not halt. Only the computation which it describes has a halting
> status, and in the case of Hn(Pn, Pn) the input describes the
> computation Pn(Pn).
>
> You keep talking about what the 'input' does, but unless by 'input' you
> mean 'the computation described by the input' this is a completely
> undefined and, as far as I can tell, meaningless notion. Halting is a
> property of *computations*, not of strings.
>
> So what does Input_Never_Halts mean?
>
> What does it mean for an input to halt or not halt?
>

It turns out that the independent execution of P(P) actually means an
input to H(P,P) that *is not* an input to H(P,P).

It turns out that the independent execution of P(P) means that main()
directly executes P(P) without H being involved.

No deciders can actually work that way. All deciders either accept or
reject finite string inputs.

H is a computable function that accepts or rejects inputs in its domain
on the basis that these inputs specify a sequence of configurations that
reach their final state.

What all you guys have been asking for is for H to have an input that
*is not* its input.

The x86 equivalent of a TM description and its input is an x86 machine
language string and some other finite string or references to these.

>>
>>> And if Hn is a halt decider, how can it only sometimes halt?
>>>
>>
>> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning examining the behavior
>> of every possible Hn(Pn,Pn) by examining the categories of possible
>> behavior.
>>
>> Only a subset of Hn(Pn,Pn) is H a decider and in only a subset of
>> these is H a correct halt decider.
>>
>>> And what does it even mean for something to sometimes halt? For any
>>> given value of n it either halts or it doesn't.
>
> Not going to answer this, I take it?
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?

Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.

Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled



#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages

On 11/23/2021 8:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-23 18:53, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/23/2021 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

> Crucially, the halting function exists *independently* and *prior* to
> any Turing Machine which attempts to compute this function. The halting
> function is *not* associated with any sort of algorithm; it is simply a
> mapping. In other words it is simply a denumerably infinite list of all
> possible computations and their halting status expressed as ordered pairs.
>

You don't realize it but you are asking a decider to make its decision
on the basis of a hypothetical string that does not actually exist.

int H(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); }
int P(ptr x) { H(x, x); }
int H1(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); }

The input to H requires that P call this very same H.
The input to H1 has no such pathological relationship to P.

By simply ignoring the pathological relationship between H and P you are
answering the wrong question.

You are answering the question:
What would the behavior of P be if P called H1 instead of calling H?

That makes the "input" to H hypothetical rather than an actual string.

> The computation P(P) will occur in this list exactly once, as will be
> true for all other computation. Since your P(P) halts, it will map to
> 'halts'.
>
> A halt decider, given <P> <P> as its input, is tasked with determining
> what the entry for that computation in the list described above actually
> is in a finite number of steps. If <P> <P> maps to 'halts' in the
> halting function, then a halt decider must accept it. If it maps to
> 'doesn't halt', it must reject it.
>
> That means that the halting value of P(P) is *not* specific to a given
> halt decider. Your H and H1 must both provide the same answer if they
> are both halt deciders. It means that it is non-sensical to talk about
> the halting value of P(P) 'inside' some H, since H's job is to determine
> what value this computation maps to in the halting FUNCTION which is
> independent of any halt decider.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Olcott can David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.

Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?

Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
>
> Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
>
> Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
> 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> 

>
>
> #6-2, 27th published book
>
> Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
>
> Preface:
> These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
>
> Equal+Not
> T = T = T
> T = ~F = T
> F = ~T = T
> F = F = T
>
> If--> then
> T --> T = T
> T --> F = F
> F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
>
> And
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F
>
>
> Or
> T or T = F
> T or F = T
> F or T = T
> F or F = F
>
> Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
>
> Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
>
> | | ~p
> | |---
> | | .
> | | .
> | | q
> | | .
> | | .
> | | ~q
> | p
>
> Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
> Length: 86 pages
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1178 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 86 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
> •
>
>
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 2167 KB
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 1150 pages
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> #1324 in General Chemistry
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
>
> Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
>
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
>
> Alan Baker
> Bela Bollobas
> Darwin Smith
> John Coates
> Timothy Gowers
> Peter Johnstone
> Imre Leader
> Gabriel Paternain
>
> Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
>
> Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics

On 11/24/2021 9:50 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-24 08:02, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/24/2021 12:27 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-23 22:48, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/2021 10:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-11-23 21:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/23/2021 9:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-11-23 20:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2021 8:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-11-23 18:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2021 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Crucially, the halting function exists *independently* and
>>>>>>>>> *prior* to any Turing Machine which attempts to compute this
>>>>>>>>> function. The halting function is *not* associated with any
>>>>>>>>> sort of algorithm; it is simply a mapping. In other words it is
>>>>>>>>> simply a denumerably infinite list of all possible computations
>>>>>>>>> and their halting status expressed as ordered pairs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't realize it but you are asking a decider to make its
>>>>>>>> decision on the basis of a hypothetical string that does not
>>>>>>>> actually exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now you claim the STRING <P> <P> can't exist? But at the same
>>>>>>> time you claim that your H1 returns the correct answer for this
>>>>>>> allegedly impossible string? How on earth does that work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); }
>>>>>> int H1(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); int P(ptr x) { H(x, x); }
>>>>>> int P1(ptr x) { H1(x, x); }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What does any of this have to do with your ridiculous claim that
>>>>> the string <P> <P> does not actually exist?
>>>>
>>>> If you want the actual behavior of P(P) run independently
>>>> then you have to change P or H into something that they are not
>>>> because they are defined with hardwired inter-dependency.
>>>
>>> If you want the actual behaviour of P(P) run independently, you
>>> simply run P(P) independently.
>>>
>>
>> So in other words H must report on the behavior of a finite string
>> that is not is input.
>
> H doesn't report on the behaviour of finite strings at all. It reports
> on the behaviour of computations.
>
> P(P) is a computation which halts.
>
> Your H needs to be able to report that P(P) halts (or any other
> arbitrary computation).
>
> Determining exactly how that particular computation must be encoded as a
> finite string so it can be passed as an input to H is part of your job
> when designing H.
>
> Maybe you don't grasp this. Consider two UTMs, X and Y (and by UTM I
> mean actual UTMs). Both of these should be able to emulate P(P) if we
> give them two copies of a string which describes the Turing Machine P.
>
> But the strings we pass to X and the string we pass to Y are *not*
> necessarily the same string. X and Y may use different alphabets and may
> use different encoding schemes. To constitute a UTM, it must be the
> case, though, that it is possible to represent every possible
> computation as a string that can be passed to that UTM.
>
> If you've designed an H such that there is no possible way to represent
> the independent computation P(P) as a string which can be passed to H as
> an input, then there is something wrong with your design.
>
>>> I think what you mean to say is if you want H to give you the correct
>>> answer about the actual behaviour of P(P) run independently, which it
>>> can't. The interdependency prevents this.
>>>
>>
>> It is incorrect to think of H having the hypothetical input where P
>> does not call H.All deciders must have finite string inputs. Because P
>> foes
>
> Where did I (or anyone) mention a P that does not simulate/call H?
>
> H is required to describe the halting behaviour of the independent
> computation P(P). That means it must describe how P(P) behaves when
> called directly from main rather than from within your halt decider.
>
>> call this same H changing P so that it does not call this same H is
>> incorrect.
>>
>> It is equally incorrect to have H report on the behavior of P as if H
>> was H1 where P does not call H1.
>>
>>> But that does not change the fact that the computation P(P) halts, and
>>
>> The fact there there are no cats in the kitchen does not have one damn
>> thing to do with dogs in the living room. I can't imagine how people
>> can so persistently make this strawman error even after being warned
>> dozens of times.
>>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>
>> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
>> {
>>    x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
>>    return 1;
>> }
>>
>> // Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
>> // and Strachey(1965) P
>> int P(ptr x)
>> {
>>    H(x, x);
>>    return 1; // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>>    H(P, P);
>> }
>>
>> Combinations of (H,P) having pathological self-reference (PSR)
>>    H(P,P) simulates or executes its input and aborts or does
>>    not abort its input and P(P) calls this same H(P,P) with itself.
>>
>> for all Hn(Pn,Pn) in the above PSR set Pn never reaches its final
>> instruction.
>>
>>
>>> that this therefore is the only correct answer to the question which
>>> a halt decider is required to answer.
>>
>> That is not the freaking way that deciders work.
>
> A decider accepts or rejects all possible inputs based on some criteria
> determined by the problem at hand.
>
> For the halting problem, the criterion is that the decider must accept
> all and only those independent computations which HALT.
>
>
>> If H(P,P) reports on the behavior of H1(P,P) or H(P1,P1) it freaking
>> answered the wrong freaking question.
>>
>> Those are the only pair of combinations that show P(P) as an
>> independent computation and they are both answers to the wrong question.
>
> NEITHER of those show P(P) as an independent computation.
>
> H(P,P) must report on the behaviour of P(P). That's the *only* behaviour
> it is being asked about.
>
>>
>> The one key verified fact that everyone simply assumes away even
>> though it is a verified fact is that there are elements of the PSR set
>> such that the input to Hn(Pn,Pn) never reaches its final state and
>> Pn(Pn) does reach its final state in this exact same sequence of
>> configurations.
>>
>> People assume that the placement in the execution trace can't make a
>> difference and yet it is a verified fact that this placement does make
>> a difference. The one way dependency relationship that Pn(Pn) has on
>> Hn(Pn,Pn) causes the outer Pn to behave differently than the inner Pn.
>>
>> Simply assuming this away is flat out dishonest.
>
> None of this is relevant (or even coherent). H(P, P) by the definition
> of the problem must report the behaviour of the independent computation
> P(P). Whether the "placement in the execution trace can make a
> difference" has no bearing on the behaviour of P(P). It might have some
> bearing on the behaviour of the simulation of P(P) inside of H, but
> that's not what the halt decider is being asked about.

The sequence of 1 to N configurations specified by the input to H(X, Y)
cannot be correctly construed as anything other than the sequence of 1
to N steps of the (direct execution, x86 emulation or UTM simulation of
this input by H.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Olcott can Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain, David Sainsbury, ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.

Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?


Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
>
> Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
>
> Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
> 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> 

>
>
> #6-2, 27th published book
>
> Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
>
> Preface:
> These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
>
> Equal+Not
> T = T = T
> T = ~F = T
> F = ~T = T
> F = F = T
>
> If--> then
> T --> T = T
> T --> F = F
> F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
>
> And
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F
>
>
> Or
> T or T = F
> T or F = T
> F or T = T
> F or F = F
>
> Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
>
> Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
>
> | | ~p
> | |---
> | | .
> | | .
> | | q
> | | .
> | | .
> | | ~q
> | p
>
> Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
> Length: 86 pages
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1178 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 86 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
> •
>
>
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 2167 KB
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 1150 pages
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> #1324 in General Chemistry
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
>
> Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
>
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
>
> Alan Baker
> Bela Bollobas
> Darwin Smith
> John Coates
> Timothy Gowers
> Peter Johnstone
> Imre Leader
> Gabriel Paternain
>
> Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
>
> Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics

On 11/24/2021 9:50 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-11-24 08:02, olcott wrote:
>> People assume that the placement in the execution trace can't make a
>> difference and yet it is a verified fact that this placement does make
>> a difference. The one way dependency relationship that Pn(Pn) has on
>> Hn(Pn,Pn) causes the outer Pn to behave differently than the inner Pn.
>>
>> Simply assuming this away is flat out dishonest.
>

> H(P, P) by the definition of the problem must report
> the behaviour of the independent computation P(P).

All that the halt decider gets is a pair of input strings specifying a
machine description and another finite string.

The correct sequence of 1 to N configurations specified by that input
pair can only be derived by 1 to N steps of (direct execution, x86
emulation or UTM simulation) of this input by H.

> Whether the "placement in the execution trace can make a
> difference" has no bearing on the behaviour of P(P). It might have some
> bearing on the behaviour of the simulation of P(P) inside of H, but
> that's not what the halt decider is being asked about.
>
> The question which a halt decider must answer is well defined. If your
> decider can't answer this correctly that does *not* change what the
> question is.
>
> André
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?

Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.

Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled



#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages