On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him.  That doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument.  So he ignores the (in PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting his core intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott responded that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it's bizarre.  A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further.  It's only someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to
>>>>>>>>>>>> /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the mucky details...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner
>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true
>>>>>>>>>>> or false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proven otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your statement are still just lies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is libelous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is a TRUE statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which perfectly describes yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
>>>>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, your claims are all LIES.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lying again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look up at the quotes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>  >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>> That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
>>>>
>>>> But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
>>>>
>>>> So, H is there.
>>>
>>> No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
>>> that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
>>>
>>> Top of page 3
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't understand that
>
> I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
> transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
> that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
>

Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually understand
what he is doing.

He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H. that ⊢*
after it represents all the states that H goes through (including the
equivalent states in Ĥ)

I not also, you have again ducked that hard questions, likely because
you don't have an answer and are trying to execute some red herring.

I guess since you didn't explain how that isn't H in Ĥ, you are just
admitting that it was, and you stupidly got caught in another lie.

You can't seem to avoid them.