XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
On 11/10/2021 2:18 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
On 10/11/2021 13:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
His removal of the key condition on H^ is crucial to his attempt to keep
the discussion going.
Disagree. What is crucial to the attempt to keep the
discussion going is the fact that every man and his dog [other
sexes and animals are available] feels the need to reply.
It can be objectively verified that the correct pure simulation
of the input to H(P,P) never halts. (pages 3-4 of the new paper).
It is known on the basis of logical necessity that when-so-ever
the correctly simulated input to a halt decider never halts
that this halt decider would always be correct when it reports
that its input never halts.
All of the current rebuttals are entirely based on denying this
logical necessity.
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
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)