XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
On 4/6/2022 6:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
known that I am correct:
WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
to its own accept or reject state.
HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
to its own accept or reject state:
On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input. >>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual >>>>>>>>>> input.
What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have >>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
No an answer.
Prerequisite order is required.
What do I need to order?
When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to >>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must >>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
SEQUENCES.
Your opinion is noted.
It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key >>>>> questions:
What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ >>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
you first understand this:
No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
wrong.
And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I >>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the >>> blue pill.
You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is
necessarily correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole
universe can possibly correctly refute this.
Thanks. Keep not saying what string must be passed to H so that H can
tell us whether or not Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
The string passed to embedded_H that it correctly maps to its final
reject state is: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
Maybe you should brush up on modal logic, you don't seem to be able to
grasp what {necessarily} means.
◊P ⟷ ¬□¬P;
Possibly(P) ⟷ Not(Necessarily(Not(P)))
□P ⟷ ¬◊¬P;
Necessarily(P) ⟷ Not(Possibly(Not(P)))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)