I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
apparently never halt.

Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
weren't so invested in this.

Just sayin’

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
> apparently never halt.
>
> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
> weren't so invested in this.
>
> Just sayin’
>
> André
>

Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
mistake that I persistently made for many months.

Linz H cannot wait for Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to stop running when Linz H is a
simulating halt decider. This means that Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(Ĥ, ⟨Ĥ⟩)

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

On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
> apparently never halt.
>
> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
> weren't so invested in this.
>

867 messages since exactly one week ago.
Since my cancer is back my time left to validate this is limited.
pod24 significantly reduces life expectancy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

> Just sayin’
>
> André
>

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

On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
>> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
>> apparently never halt.
>>
>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
>> weren't so invested in this.
>>
>> Just sayin’
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
> mistake that I persistently made for many months.

There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.

You just ignore all of it, showing that YOUR statements are just your
own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how
logic works.

Your only "rebuttal" is to just repeat you same lie. You say things
seems OBVIOUS, but can't actually quote any accepted logical reason for
them.

>
> Linz H cannot wait for Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to stop running when Linz H is a
> simulating halt decider. This means that Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(Ĥ, ⟨Ĥ⟩)
>

Right, so it stops and guess and gets it wrong, just like ALL Your logic.

On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
>> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
>> apparently never halt.
>>
>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
>> weren't so invested in this.
>>
>> Just sayin’
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
> mistake that I persistently made for many months.

There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.

You just ignore all of it, showing that YOUR statements are just your
own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how
logic works.

Your only "rebuttal" is to just repeat you same lie. You say things
seems OBVIOUS, but can't actually quote any accepted logical reason for
them.

>
> Linz H cannot wait for Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to stop running when Linz H is a
> simulating halt decider. This means that Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(Ĥ, ⟨Ĥ⟩)
>

Right, so it stops and guess and gets it wrong, just like ALL Your logic.

On 3/22/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>
>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>
>>> Just sayin’
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>
> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>

To the best of my knowledge every rebuttal in the past
six months has been specifically counter-factual.
You are now at the point of contradicting your own self.

Maybe you found a tiny imperfection in my words yet still
understand that I did prove my point even if my words had
a bug.

> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just your
> own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how
> logic works.
>
The gist of all of my claims for the last 20 years has
always been correct. Translating these correct intuitions
into words has been less correct. My words often have bugs.

> Your only "rebuttal" is to just repeat you same lie. You say things
> seems OBVIOUS, but can't actually quote any accepted logical reason for
> them.
>

Explain how your words quoted below do not perfectly agree that
every H(D,D) that simulates its input is necessarily correct to
abort this simulation.
On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>> never stops running.
>
> Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
> them won't be deciders...

I can't see any loophole where this does not logically entail
that every H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulated input is
necessarily correct.

*I have already shown how Mike's reasoning does not work*
When every element of a class has the same property then any
decision based on this shared property cannot vary by individual
members of this class.

If every H(D,D) that simulates its input must abort this simulation
then there are no relevant differences between members of this set
that need be accounted for.

We can think of this as matched pairs of otherwise identical H(D,D)
where the only difference between these pairs is that one aborts
and the other does not. *The one that does not is wrong*

This seems to totally obliterate Mike argument.

>>
>> Linz H cannot wait for Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to stop running when Linz H is a
>> simulating halt decider. This means that Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(Ĥ, ⟨Ĥ⟩)
>>
>
> Right, so it stops and guess and gets it wrong, just like ALL Your logic.

Not at all. The Linz H simply becomes just like H(D,D) and thus not
just like H1(D,D) as I continued to believe until I fully analyzed it.

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

On 3/22/2024 8:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
> apparently never halt.
>
> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
> weren't so invested in this.
>
> Just sayin’
Jello-4-brains managed to miss your point AND continue the nonsense in
just 5 minutes according to the message time stamps. It just goes to
show that stupid is no impediment to speed. Just sayin'
--
Jeff Barnett

On 3/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>
>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>
>>> Just sayin’
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>
> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>
> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just your
> own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how
> logic works.
>

*If that was true then you would not have agreed to this*
*That you agreed with this proves that it not true*

On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>> never stops running.
>
> Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
> them won't be deciders...

I am using
[Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort]
You and Mike don't seem to understand this.

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

On 2024-03-22 21:37, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 8:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
>> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
>> apparently never halt.
>>
>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
>> weren't so invested in this.
>>
>> Just sayin’
> Jello-4-brains managed to miss your point AND continue the nonsense in
> just 5 minutes according to the message time stamps. It just goes to
> show that stupid is no impediment to speed. Just sayin'

I had been tempted to post a "whooosh!", but I figured it would go over
his head.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 3/22/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 messages
>> on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott threads which
>> apparently never halt.
>>
>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if you
>> weren't so invested in this.
>>
>
> 867 messages since exactly one week ago.
> Since my cancer is back my time left to validate this is limited.
> pod24 significantly reduces life expectancy.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>

Which for most reasonable people would mean the would try to focus their
remaining time on something productive, but you have decided to
double-down on your same failed attempt that has made you waste your
last 20 years.

>> Just sayin’
>>
>> André
>>
>

On 3/22/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>
>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>
>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>
>
> To the best of my knowledge every rebuttal in the past
> six months has been specifically counter-factual.
> You are now at the point of contradicting your own self.

Nope, your STATEMENTS

>
> Maybe you found a tiny imperfection in my words yet still
> understand that I did prove my point even if my words had
> a bug.
>
>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just your
>> own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how
>> logic works.
>>
> The gist of all of my claims for the last 20 years has
> always been correct. Translating these correct intuitions
> into words has been less correct. My words often have bugs.

Well, All we can go on is what you say, and your words havve expressed
total falsehoods, and show an utter lack of understanding of the topics
you are talking about. If you really think you have something correct to
say, YOUR first responsibility is to learn the language to express it.

It seems the problem is that you don't actually understand the fields
you talk about, but from redementary vague concepts, you performed a
zeroth principles invention of a field that vaguely resembles that one
you have seen people write about, and without actually understanding
those systems, you claim major issues with them based on your own
failure to understand the systems.

>
>> Your only "rebuttal" is to just repeat you same lie. You say things
>> seems OBVIOUS, but can't actually quote any accepted logical reason
>> for them.
>>
>
> Explain how your words quoted below do not perfectly agree that
> every H(D,D) that simulates its input is necessarily correct to
> abort this simulation.
> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
> >> never stops running.
> >
> > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
> > them won't be deciders...

Because it only talks about the Ds built on Hs that don't abort.

Hs that DO abort, are different than those that don't. A program IS what
it is and its input IS what it is.

It is correct to say you need to abort an input based on an H that
doesn't abort.

It is NOT correct to say you need to abort an input based on an H that
is DIFFERENT, and does abort.

>
> I can't see any loophole where this does not logically entail
> that every H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulated input is
> necessarily correct.

Right, YOU don't see it, because you are just too stupid to understand.

That doesn't make you right.

>
> *I have already shown how Mike's reasoning does not work*
> When every element of a class has the same property then any
> decision based on this shared property cannot vary by individual
> members of this class.

And the class you proved this for was for the class of D that were built
on Hs that did not abort.

>
> If every H(D,D) that simulates its input must abort this simulation
> then there are no relevant differences between members of this set
> that need be accounted for.

Except that class was just non-aborting Hs, so aborting Hs are a
different class.

This is just you saying cats are 10 story office buildings.

>
> We can think of this as matched pairs of otherwise identical H(D,D)
> where the only difference between these pairs is that one aborts
> and the other does not. *The one that does not is wrong*

And how is an H that aborts identical to an H that doesn't.

That is saying that a cat is a 10 story office build.

That OLITERATES YOUR arguement.

You can put an empty gun to your head and safely pull the trigger.

Do the exact same thing wth the "identical" gun, but with a bullet in
it, and you get a different result.

Maybe you should try that to be sure.

>
> This seems to totally obliterate Mike argument.
>
>>>
>>> Linz H cannot wait for Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to stop running when Linz H is a
>>> simulating halt decider. This means that Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(Ĥ, ⟨Ĥ⟩)
>>>
>>
>> Right, so it stops and guess and gets it wrong, just like ALL Your logic.
>
> Not at all. The Linz H simply becomes just like H(D,D) and thus not
> just like H1(D,D) as I continued to believe until I fully analyzed it.
>

Right, so gets the wrong answer, and H1 gets a D1 that makes IT wrong.

Every Decider has an input they get wrong, so no decider gets all inputs
right,

On 3/22/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>
>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>
>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>
>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just your
>> own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how
>> logic works.
>>
>
> *If that was true then you would not have agreed to this*
> *That you agreed with this proves that it not true*
>
> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
> >> never stops running.
> >
> > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
> > them won't be deciders...
>
> I am using
> [Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort]
> You and Mike don't seem to understand this.
>

Nope, you are just using inalid logic.

You think that Hs that abort and Hs that don't are exactly the same sort
of thing, when they are not.

Thus, you prove your utter stupidity.

On 3/23/2024 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>
>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>
>>
>> 867 messages since exactly one week ago.
>> Since my cancer is back my time left to validate this is limited.
>> pod24 significantly reduces life expectancy.
>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>>
>
> Which for most reasonable people would mean the would try to focus their
> remaining time on something productive, but you have decided to
> double-down on your same failed attempt that has made you waste your
> last 20 years.
>

*Focusing on my legacy keeps my mind off my illness*
*Focusing on my legacy keeps my mind off my illness*
*Focusing on my legacy keeps my mind off my illness*

Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic
On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> PREMISES:
> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> was defined to be impossible.
>
> (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
> …
> CONCLUSION:
> Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
>
USENET Message-ID:
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

*Direct Link to original message*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+

[1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf

[2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
13 Nov 2014
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)

*Here is how you said that same thing*
*Here is how you said that same thing*
*Here is how you said that same thing*

On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
> the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
> external H means the code of H affects its
> behavior, and that must be taken into account.

[3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]

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

On 3/23/2024 9:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>>
>>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>>
>>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just
>>> your own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING
>>> of how logic works.
>>>
>>
>> *If that was true then you would not have agreed to this*
>> *That you agreed with this proves that it not true*
>>
>> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>>  >> never stops running.
>>  >
>>  > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
>>  > them won't be deciders...
>>
>> I am using
>> [Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort]
>> You and Mike don't seem to understand this.
>>
>
> Nope, you are just using inalid logic.
>
> You think that Hs that abort and Hs that don't are exactly the same sort
> of thing, when they are not.
>
> Thus, you prove your utter stupidity.

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

The whole class of every H(D,D) that simulates its input
is divided into two sub-classes:
(a) H(D,D) that DOES NOT abort its simulation is incorrect
(ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
because it would never halt and all deciders must always halt.

(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
(ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

That you and Mike still think that irrelvant differences make
a relevant differnce proves that your views are incoherent.

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

On 3/23/2024 9:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>>
>>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>>
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge every rebuttal in the past
>> six months has been specifically counter-factual.
>> You are now at the point of contradicting your own self.
>
> Nope, your STATEMENTS
>
>>
>> Maybe you found a tiny imperfection in my words yet still
>> understand that I did prove my point even if my words had
>> a bug.
>>
>>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just
>>> your own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING
>>> of how logic works.
>>>
>> The gist of all of my claims for the last 20 years has
>> always been correct. Translating these correct intuitions
>> into words has been less correct. My words often have bugs.
>
> Well, All we can go on is what you say, and your words havve expressed
> total falsehoods, and show an utter lack of understanding of the topics
> you are talking about. If you really think you have something correct to
> say, YOUR first responsibility is to learn the language to express it.
>
> It seems the problem is that you don't actually understand the fields
> you talk about, but from redementary vague concepts, you performed a
> zeroth principles invention of a field that vaguely resembles that one
> you have seen people write about, and without actually understanding
> those systems, you claim major issues with them based on your own
> failure to understand the systems.
>
>>
>>> Your only "rebuttal" is to just repeat you same lie. You say things
>>> seems OBVIOUS, but can't actually quote any accepted logical reason
>>> for them.
>>>
>>
>> Explain how your words quoted below do not perfectly agree that
>> every H(D,D) that simulates its input is necessarily correct to
>> abort this simulation.
>> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>>  >> never stops running.
>>  >
>>  > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
>>  > them won't be deciders...
>
> Because it only talks about the Ds built on Hs that don't abort.
>
> Hs that DO abort, are different than those that don't. A program IS what
> it is and its input IS what it is.
>
> It is correct to say you need to abort an input based on an H that
> doesn't abort.
>
> It is NOT correct to say you need to abort an input based on an H that
> is DIFFERENT, and does abort.
>
>>
>> I can't see any loophole where this does not logically entail
>> that every H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulated input is
>> necessarily correct.
>
> Right, YOU don't see it, because you are just too stupid to understand.
>
> That doesn't make you right.
>
>>
>> *I have already shown how Mike's reasoning does not work*
>> When every element of a class has the same property then any
>> decision based on this shared property cannot vary by individual
>> members of this class.
>
> And the class you proved this for was for the class of D that were built
> on Hs that did not abort.
>
>>
>> If every H(D,D) that simulates its input must abort this simulation
>> then there are no relevant differences between members of this set
>> that need be accounted for.
>
> Except that class was just non-aborting Hs, so aborting Hs are a
> different class.
>
> This is just you saying cats are 10 story office buildings.
>
>>
>> We can think of this as matched pairs of otherwise identical H(D,D)
>> where the only difference between these pairs is that one aborts
>> and the other does not. *The one that does not is wrong*
>
> And how is an H that aborts identical to an H that doesn't.
>

Of all of the elements of the set of H(D,D) where H simulates its
input there are matched pairs of otherwise identical elements that
only differ by whether they abort their simulation or not.

The half of these that don't abort are incorrect because all deciders
must halt. This makes the other half correct about the abort/no abort
decision.

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

On 3/23/24 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:

>
> Of all of the elements of the set of H(D,D) where H simulates its
> input there are matched pairs of otherwise identical elements that
> only differ by whether they abort their simulation or not.
>
> The half of these that don't abort are incorrect because all deciders
> must halt. This makes the other half correct about the abort/no abort
> decision.
>

Nope. False Dichotomy and invalid logic.

It presumes that there IS a correct answer that some machine can give to
the configuration.

Since the input isn't a compuation, this bastard system doesn't affect
the field of Computation Theory, only Olcott's POOP.

On 3/23/24 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 9:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>>>
>>>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>>>
>>>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just
>>>> your own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING
>>>> of how logic works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *If that was true then you would not have agreed to this*
>>> *That you agreed with this proves that it not true*
>>>
>>> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>  >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>>>  >> never stops running.
>>>  >
>>>  > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
>>>  > them won't be deciders...
>>>
>>> I am using
>>> [Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort]
>>> You and Mike don't seem to understand this.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you are just using inalid logic.
>>
>> You think that Hs that abort and Hs that don't are exactly the same
>> sort of thing, when they are not.
>>
>> Thus, you prove your utter stupidity.
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> The whole class of every H(D,D) that simulates its input
> is divided into two sub-classes:
> (a) H(D,D) that DOES NOT abort its simulation is incorrect
>     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>     because it would never halt and all deciders must always halt.
>
> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>
> That you and Mike still think that irrelvant differences make
> a relevant differnce proves that your views are incoherent.
>

Nope. FALSE DICHOTOMY.

You are presuming there IS a correct answer that these H can give for
the input restricted to the contrary input.

Since we have agreed that the "Need to Abort" is determined by the
actual Correct Simulation of the input (which still uses the same
decider), and that simulation will see D call H(D,D) and that simulation
aborting and returning 0, and thus D halting, H fails to meet the "Need
to abort" criteria.

Comparing this H to the Hs in sub-set (a) is just invalid logic, which
seems to be one of your specialties.

If you want to say this make this question invalid, go ahead, since it
isn't the ACTUAL halting question, since your D isn't a computation, as
you have admitted, that doesn't affect the actual qusition, just breaks
your proof.

On 3/23/24 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000
>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott
>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if
>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 867 messages since exactly one week ago.
>>> Since my cancer is back my time left to validate this is limited.
>>> pod24 significantly reduces life expectancy.
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>>>
>>
>> Which for most reasonable people would mean the would try to focus
>> their remaining time on something productive, but you have decided to
>> double-down on your same failed attempt that has made you waste your
>> last 20 years.
>>
>
> *Focusing on my legacy keeps my mind off my illness*
> *Focusing on my legacy keeps my mind off my illness*
> *Focusing on my legacy keeps my mind off my illness*

And it seems you have decided to just torpedo it further.
>
> Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)  sci.logic
> On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
> > PREMISES:
> > (1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
> > was defined to be impossible.

Which is a historically inaccurate statement. It was first hoped that it
was possible, because if it was, then you could build a predicate for
truth in mathematics, which was hoped for.

> >
> > (2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.

Except that every specific question about computations HAS a correct
answer. Only your "non-computation template" input gives you the no
correct answer results.

> > …
> > CONCLUSION:
> > Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.

Nope, it shows that Peter Olcott is just a pathetic hypocritical
ignorant pathological lying idiot.

> >
> USENET Message-ID:
> <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
> *Direct Link to original message*
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CkZiBc.103407%24Gx4.18142%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net%3E+
>
> [1] E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>
> [2] Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
> 13 Nov 2014
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>
>    The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
>    whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
>    changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
>    and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
>    light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)

Except that computataions can not be a "Context-Dependent Function", and
he is just showing he doesn't understand that field.

>
> *Here is how you said that same thing*
> *Here is how you said that same thing*
> *Here is how you said that same thing*
>
> On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
> > the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
> > external H means the code of H affects its
> > behavior, and that must be taken into account.

Right, D, to be a compuation, includes the defintion of the H that it is
based on. If you are changing that, you are changing the computatation
that D is, and getting a new question.

>
> [3] Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
> 20 December 2017
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>
>
>

On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

To be a decider it has to give an answer.

To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as
whether the direct execution of its input would halt.

On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>
> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as
> whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>

That would entail that H must report on different behavior
than the behavior that H actually sees thus violate the
definition of a decider that must compute the mapping from
its inputs...

On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
> the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
> external H means *the code of H affects its*
> *behavior, and that must be taken into account*

Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
13 Nov 2014
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]

The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)

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

On 3/23/24 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>>
>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>
>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as
>> whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>>
>
> That would entail that H must report on different behavior
> than the behavior that H actually sees thus violate the
> definition of a decider that must compute the mapping from
> its inputs...

Nope.
You are just showing yourself to be a stupid liar.

Where in the DEFINITION of Compute the Mapping of the Input to the
Mapped Output does it say that the decider has to be able to "see" that
property of the input?

>
> On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
> > the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
> > external H means *the code of H affects its*
> > *behavior, and that must be taken into account*
>
> Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
> 13 Nov 2014
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>
>    The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
>    whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
>    changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
>    and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
>    light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)

Right, Your "C Function D" which uses an externally supplied function
not part of itself is ILLEGAL in Computatin Theory, as it isn't a
Computation.

YOU don't understand that, and neither to your "friend" that you quote.

YOu are just proving that you are just TOO STUPID to be able to make any
assertios about COmputation Theory.

You are just a PATHETIC HYPOCRITICAL IGNORANT PATHOLOGICAL LYING IDIOT.
>

On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>>
>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>
>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as
>> whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>
> That would entail that

Tough shit. That is the requirement.

On 3/23/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/23/24 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>>>
>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>
>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as
>>> whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>>>
>>
>> That would entail that H must report on different behavior
>> than the behavior that H actually sees thus violate the
>> definition of a decider that must compute the mapping from
>> its inputs...
>
> Nope.
> You are just showing yourself to be a stupid liar.
>
> Where in the DEFINITION of Compute the Mapping of the Input to the
> Mapped Output does it say that the decider has to be able to "see" that
> property of the input?
>

In order to compute the mapping from an input there must be
some basis that is directly provided by this input. The basis
certainly cannot be what you and others simply imagine is the
correct behavior.

>>
>> On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  >
>>  > The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
>>  > the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
>>  > external H means *the code of H affects its*
>>  > *behavior, and that must be taken into account*
>>
>> Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
>> Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
>> 13 Nov 2014
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018
>> arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
>>
>>     The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
>>     whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
>>     changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
>>     and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
>>     light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)
>
>
> Right, Your "C Function D" which uses an externally supplied function
> not part of itself is ILLEGAL in Computatin Theory, as it isn't a
> Computation.
>
So you are saying that this guy was wrong.

An impossible program
C. Strachey
The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
Published: 01 January 1965
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243

> YOU don't understand that, and neither to your "friend" that you quote.
>
I don't know him. Professor Hehner was pleased that someone
else agrees with him.

> YOu are just proving that you are just TOO STUPID to be able to make any
> assertios about COmputation Theory.
>
> You are just a PATHETIC HYPOCRITICAL IGNORANT PATHOLOGICAL LYING IDIOT.
>>
>

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

On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>>>
>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>
>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as
>>> whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>>
>> That would entail that
>
> Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>

I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.

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

On 24/03/24 03:11, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Nope.
>> You are just showing yourself to be a stupid liar.
>>
>> Where in the DEFINITION of Compute the Mapping of the Input to the
>> Mapped Output does it say that the decider has to be able to "see"
>> that property of the input?
>>
>
> In order to compute the mapping from an input there must be
> some basis that is directly provided by this input.

This is nonsense that you made up. It doesn't mean anything. Try again.

>
>> Right, Your "C Function D" which uses an externally supplied function
>> not part of itself is ILLEGAL in Computatin Theory, as it isn't a
>> Computation.
>>
> So you are saying that this guy was wrong.
>
> An impossible program
> C. Strachey
> The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
> Published: 01 January 1965
> https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243

Yes. He gave an approximate answer without details that fit in the
bottom quarter of one newsletter page. When you study the problem more
closely you realize more details are needed to make a correct proof.
Nonetheless his answer likely introduced many people to the fact that it
was proved unsolvable.