XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
On 11/20/2021 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/20/21 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/20/2021 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/20/21 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Comment about this being V22 and you version number counting faster
than daily.
This sort of shows the level of effort (or lack thereof) you are
putting into your logic.
Basically as soon as someone points our a flaw in your logic,
rather than trying to defend it, you just try to reword you
statement to see if you can find the right 'weasel words' to try to
excuse your error, without even attempting to address the
fundamental flaws in your arguement.
This basically shows that you DON'T have a defense for what you are
saying.
Fundamentally, you don't have a shread of ground to stand on as the
problem is that the theory you want to talk about HAS defined the
terms you are trying to mis-use, and you can't get around it.
Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a Halt Decider is
does a given computation, when run independently Halt or not when run. >>>>>
When you try and find a way to translate that into an element of the
domain of function H
YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL
YOU FAIL
You Lie, I did it, YOU FAIL.
If the domain of H is NOT representations of Computation then you are
not talking about a Halt Decider, and thus are one of the biggest
liars on the planet.
There is no mathematically precise way to say this:
Remember,the FUNDAMENTAL question being asked of a
Halt Decider is does a given computation, when run
independently Halt or not when run.
What is mathematically imprecise about that?
Computation P(I) will absolutely EITHER reach a halting state in some
finite number of steps N, or it will NEVER reach a halting state in an unbounded number of steps.
How do you tell a mathematical function that it is not allowed to base
its halt status decision on the sequence of configurations specified by
(P, I) and instead must base its halt status decision on P(I) [when run independently] ???
Is the problem that you don't understand the concept of unbounded
numbers or infinities?
If so, Mathematics is NOT a field you should be working in.
This is mathematically precise:
a specified sequence of configurations reaches the halt state of this
sequence (or not).
But that isn't the definition of Halting.
Unless the 'specified sequence of configurations' is a UTM applied to
the input.
That just shows you are not talking about the halting problem because
you just don't understand what halting is!
Its hard to be convincing about proofs based on 'the meaning of words',
when you admit that you just don't understand the meaning of a
fundamental word in the topic.
--
Copyright 2021 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)