I have reformulated my system so that it correctly handles this.

// Full Linz Ĥ as C/x86
void P(ptr x)
{ ptr y = copy(x);
if (H(x, y))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

Because it no longer relies on machine addresses H1(P,P) == H(P,P).

[Olcott 2021 generic halt deciding principle] Whenever the pure
simulation of the input to simulating halt decider H(x,y) never stops
running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly aborts this
simulation and returns 0 for not halting.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
If the UTM simulation of the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches
its own final state.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
If the pure simulation of the input to Ĥqx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never reach its
final state (whether or not this simulation is aborted) then it is
necessarily true that Ĥqx transitions to Ĥ.qn correctly.

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

Olcott can Roger Penrose, Peter Higgs, Edward Witten ever, 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 are they too far brainwashed in mind, like you Pete Olcott that they lost the ability to ask questions?

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:
> I have reformulated my system

AP reformulated his cooking and found baking essential

Much of cooking (see far below) is a mindless act-- voiced by MitchR, Zelos, John Gabriel, just like their "no physics" in sci.physics and no math in sci.math and echoed by these losers of physics who hoodwinked a Nobel Prize in physics.
Hoodwinked because none can ask the childlike question that even a child knows to ask-- which is the atom's true electron, is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings doing the Faraday law, or is the true electron of atoms the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. (See cooking 8Dec21 below of making chocolate chip cookies with the least electricity possible).

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
..
..
little fishes
..
..
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
..
..
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten

Why cannot any of the above listed bozo the clowns of physics ever ask a LOGICAL question, for we have to wonder whether a degree in physics is mindboggling a 100% corruption of the brain, so far brainwashed, for example that Ed Witten could never ever ask the question which is the atom's real electron, for Ed's brain was excavated out by the school system having him memorize that 0.5MeV is the atom's real electron, and the Logical question is -out of the question- for the excavated brain mind of Ed Witten's physics.

So, here on 8Dec21 we have a cooking lesson of a mind that if Free of pollution and brainwashed schooling. A mind capable of asking questions, capable of experimentation unlike MitchR, WM, John Gabriel, Zelos. So about 2 months ago I was experimenting with toasted cheese with tomato slices to perfect that cooking and quite by accident I left a sandwich on top of the electric heater in the living room. And almost forgot it, doing some science. When I returned, I had found that the slow and small heat by the radiator electric heater had toasted that cheese-tomato sandwich to perfection, so that there was just a tiny layer of toast on bottom and the cheese and tomato were perfectly cooked. The best toasted or grilled cheese sandwich in my entire life.

So with that experience I bought Amy's (hard to keep straight all these female names, --- Amy, Alice, Ann... for the last time at the organic food store I was confused if it was Amy yoghurt or Alice yoghurt or Ann's yoghurt as I even confused the stockman).

Anyway, I bought a box of Amy's, not Ann's nor Alice's, nor Newman's daughter chocolate chip cookies for the expressed purpose of seeing if I can cook those cookies to perfection on my living room electric heater.

No oven, of course not. For this is what I call the mindless cooking of what everyone, including MitchR, Zelos, John Gabriel, Pentcho Valev, WM when not spamming sci.math or Ed Witten use to cook.

Everyone uses the wasteful wasteful wasteful energy of ovens for hours, while AP uses a radiant electric heater that is in use already to heat the house, and why waste kilotherms and kilotherms of electric power for a oven.

The cookies are in a stainless steel pot with tight lid sitting on the heater as I type. And I added a stick of butter, and 1 egg, and a bit of milk to make it a dough like.

So, will report throughout the day on how it goes-- does AP achieve cookie perfection with spending the least amount of energy?

2) I had to add more flour, as there was too much butter.

3) I grew impatient and then decided to bake in the oven. Leaving a few of the dough to save at the end for just the electric heaters to bake them. Will compare.


y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

On 12/8/2021 4:16 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> If the UTM simulation...
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>> If the pure simulation...
>
> No. As you know, the correct annotations for those lines are:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> and the usual conclusion follows immediately form these facts.
>

Actually even Linz got that incorrectly.
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not deciding whether or not Ĥ (and thus itself) halts it
is deciding whether or not ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ would halt.

When we further hypothesize the the original H was a simulating halt
decider then we get:

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ essentially specifies infinite recursion that is
aborted after the first invocation of this infinite recursion.

Because it is not aborted at the first invocation we get the confusing
case where Ĥ halts yet its own simulation of itself must be aborted.

We don't have this issue with H. H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts this
infinite recursion at its first invocation.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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