// Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
void P(ptr x)
{ if (H(x, y))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

H and P are defined according to the standard HP counter-example
template shown above.

H bases its halt status decision on the behavior of the simulation of
its input.

Then P demonstrates an infinitely repeating pattern that cannot possibly
ever reach its final state.

This conclusively proves that the input to H meets the Linz definition
of non-halting:

computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

thus the sufficiency condition for H to report that its input specifies
a non-halting computation.

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 1/8/2022 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/8/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> // Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
>> // and Strachey(1965) P
>> void P(ptr x)
>> {
>>    if (H(x, y))
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> H and P are defined according to the standard HP counter-example
>> template shown above.
>>
>> H bases its halt status decision on the behavior of the simulation of
>> its input.
>>
>> Then P demonstrates an infinitely repeating pattern that cannot
>> possibly ever reach its final state.
>>
>> This conclusively proves that the input to H meets the Linz definition
>> of non-halting:
>>
>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>
>> thus the sufficiency condition for H to report that its input
>> specifies a non-halting computation.
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>>
>>
>>
>
> Full Proof with Request for Rebuttal
> We have gone around the circle of this MANY times, and you keep just
> rearranging things and not every answering the refutation.

The problem is that you are simply too stupid to ever understand that P
specifies a sequence of configurations that never reach its final state
and thus is correctly determined to be a non-halting computation
according to Linz.

Malcolm, Kaz and Flibble are not too stupid to understand this.

Ben, André and Mike are not interested in understanding what I say they
are only interested in finding some basis for rebuttal. If there is at
least one minor point that I have not proven completely they count
everything that I say as incorrect on the basis of this minor point.

--
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 1/8/2022 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/8/22 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/8/2022 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/8/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> // Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
>>>> // and Strachey(1965) P
>>>> void P(ptr x)
>>>> {
>>>>    if (H(x, y))
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> H and P are defined according to the standard HP counter-example
>>>> template shown above.
>>>>
>>>> H bases its halt status decision on the behavior of the simulation
>>>> of its input.
>>>>
>>>> Then P demonstrates an infinitely repeating pattern that cannot
>>>> possibly ever reach its final state.
>>>>
>>>> This conclusively proves that the input to H meets the Linz
>>>> definition of non-halting:
>>>>
>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>>>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>
>>>> thus the sufficiency condition for H to report that its input
>>>> specifies a non-halting computation.
>>>>
>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Full Proof with Request for Rebuttal
>>> We have gone around the circle of this MANY times, and you keep just
>>> rearranging things and not every answering the refutation.
>>
>> The problem is that you are simply too stupid to ever understand that
>> P specifies a sequence of configurations that never reach its final
>> state and thus is correctly determined to be a non-halting computation
>> according to Linz.
>
> And you are too stupid to see that it doesn't if H(P,P) returns 0, as
> this just proved.
>

It is always correct for H to report on what the behavior of its input
would be if H did not interfere with the behavior of this input.
H is an objective observer.

It is never correct for H to report on what the behavior of its input
would be if H did interfere with the behavior of this input.
H is not an objective observer.

> Your failure to point out an error will be taken as an admission that
> you accept that your logic is incorrect.
>
> FAIR WARNING.
>
>>
>> Malcolm, Kaz and Flibble are not too stupid to understand this.
>>
>> Ben, André and Mike are not interested in understanding what I say
>> they are only interested in finding some basis for rebuttal. If there
>> is at least one minor point that I have not proven completely they
>> count everything that I say as incorrect on the basis of this minor
>> point.
>>
>

--
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 1/9/2022 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/9/22 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/9/2022 11:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/9/22 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2022 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/22 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2022 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/8/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
>>>>>>>> // and Strachey(1965) P
>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    if (H(x, y))
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H and P are defined according to the standard HP counter-example
>>>>>>>> template shown above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H bases its halt status decision on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>> simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then P demonstrates an infinitely repeating pattern that cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly ever reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This conclusively proves that the input to H meets the Linz
>>>>>>>> definition of non-halting:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever
>>>>>>>> it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thus the sufficiency condition for H to report that its input
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting computation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Full Proof with Request for Rebuttal
>>>>>>> We have gone around the circle of this MANY times, and you keep
>>>>>>> just rearranging things and not every answering the refutation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that you are simply too stupid to ever understand
>>>>>> that P specifies a sequence of configurations that never reach its
>>>>>> final state and thus is correctly determined to be a non-halting
>>>>>> computation according to Linz.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you are too stupid to see that it doesn't if H(P,P) returns 0,
>>>>> as this just proved.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is always correct for H to report on what the behavior of its
>>>> input would be if H did not interfere with the behavior of this input.
>>>> H is an objective observer.
>>>>
>>>> It is never correct for H to report on what the behavior of its
>>>> input would be if H did interfere with the behavior of this input.
>>>> H is not an objective observer.
>>>
>>> IMPROPERLY PHRASED, H must report on what the machine that its input
>>> represents will do, even if that includes a copy of itself. That is
>>> not H 'interfering' with the behavior of that machine.
>>>
>>> It is Impossible for the copy of a decider doing the deciding to
>>> 'interfere' with the behavior of a machine, as that behavior is
>>> defined independent of the decider.
>>>
>>> Yes, the aborting of a simulation by the copy of the decider doing
>>> the deciding doesn't affect the behavior of the machine it is
>>> deciding on, a copy of it IN the machine it is trying to decide on,
>>> DOES, as it IS part of the machine it is deciding on.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you can't keep the different copies of H separate shows
>>> your lack of reasoning ability.
>>>
>>
>> When H reports on what the behavior of its simulated input would be if
>> H did not interfere, it is the same for P, infinite loops, or infinite
>> recursion, H must only reject its input as non-halting.
>>
>
> Except it isn't 'interference' for the copy of H in the input to do what
> it is programmed to do.
>

It is the job of H to determine what the behavior of the input would be
if H did not interfere with this behavior.

Alternatively H could correctly recognize inputs that would never stop
running if H did not interfere and then report that every input does
halt when H does interfere.

Such an H could simply accept every input in that some of its inputs
halt on their own and the other inputs must be aborted. In this case It
would be impossible to create an input that H would not correctly decide.

> In fact, it is interference for the H that is deciding to NOT let the
> copy of H inside P to do that that H is programmed to do.
>
> DEFINITIONS, you know, The correct answer for H(<X>, y) is basd on what
> X(y) would do when run.
>
> The behavior of 'the input' is what that program would do when run
> 'without outside interference', that means that copy of H inside P does
> what it will do.
>
> Since H(P,P) returns 0, ALL Copies of H(P,P) return 0, so the copy
> inside P does thins, and P(P) will Halt.
>
> FAIL.
>
> This has been PROVEN and no actual rebuttal provided, so you have
> conceded the point.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your failure to point out an error will be taken as an admission
>>>>> that you accept that your logic is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIR WARNING.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Malcolm, Kaz and Flibble are not too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben, André and Mike are not interested in understanding what I say
>>>>>> they are only interested in finding some basis for rebuttal. If
>>>>>> there is at least one minor point that I have not proven
>>>>>> completely they count everything that I say as incorrect on the
>>>>>> basis of this minor point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Is-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 capable of ever multiplying 9 times 105 and see neutron proton are "within sigma error"? Why do they fail physics by thinking the electron is the 0..5MeV particle outside a proton of 938MeV and traveling at 99% speed of light? Why do they not understand angular momentum that you need the muon as the real electron stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, for proper true angular momentum.

Kibo the dumbest CIA agent but who is the dumbest physicist of 20th & 21st century? Was it Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs the dumbest physicists of the 20th and 21st century?? Well an answer to that question has to be everyone who believed that you can have a electron of atoms flying around its proton-outside the proton at a speed of 99% speed of light. Which goes to prove no-one in physics from Bohr onwards had a handle, had a understanding of what is Angular Momentum. No physicist of the 20th century was worth more than 10cents when it comes to angular momentum.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:21:43 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> He didn't deserve his Nobel Prizes.

Peter Higgs needs publish in the Edinburgh University newspaper, and Roger Penrose at Oxford Univ student newspaper and Sheldon Glashow at Harvard Univ newspaper that he now acknowledges that the real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday Law which is the reason that stars and Sun shine in the first place, not from fusion but from Faraday law. And this is very dangerous for Earth and humanity, for starshine by Faraday law means we have perhaps only 1,000 years to colonize Europa. And we do not need an idiot of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs telling us false physics, holding up true physics science all because they are self congratulating morons of physics.
>
> I demand that Peter Higgs go to the Edinburgh newspaper and publish the idea that real electron of atoms is the muon, for only a fool idiot like Peter Higgs who was deluded all his life long time in physics, would believe in the Bohr model that a electron is 0.5MeV circumnavigating a proton of 938MeV and still stay clung to that proton even going at 99% speed of light (what fruitcakes have we here?).
>
> The moment physics realized the true electron of atoms was nearly the speed of light-- even the muon-- is the moment Old Physics needed to realize the true electron was INSIDE the proton, not outside. For Old Physics never understood what the hell was Angular Momentum. You cannot have a electron outside a proton at 99% speed of light.
>
> So Peter Higgs, I need you to go to the Edinburgh newspaper and publish the fact that you now see the light of day that the true electron is muon stuck inside a Proton torus doing the Faraday law.
>
> Time is of the essence, Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs, failures of physics.
>
>
> THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
> 15k views
> 
> Skip to first unread message
> Subscribe
> 
> Earle Jones's profile photo
> Earle Jones
> Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM (yesterday)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> *
> Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.
>
> At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.
>
> He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.
>
> Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.
>
> Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
> *
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Jan 6, 2022, 2:52:30 AM (yesterday)
> 
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post? Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Jan 6, 2022, 2:57:36 AM (yesterday)
> 
> I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading. On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> unread,
> 12:59 PM (now)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.
>
> Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.
>
> Time is of the essence.
>
> No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".
>
> Time is of the essence.
>
> The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.
>
> As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.
>
> 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
> 
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics


Sorry I should explain why McGinn is in the title. He has for years now tried to be a loud airhead foghorn of know nothing in physics and to try to front page hog sci.physics. For one looking at sci.physics sees a flood of posts lacking any science, but just name calling with his cronies of Claudius, Pnal, Pennino, Sergio and many others in a prank joke of front page hogging. And so McGinn needs to depart sci.physics so that true real physics is done here. Not some idiot who wants to argue Meteorology or Weather. McGinn does no science, McGinn wants to pollute and takeover sci.physics.