XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

On 11/20/2021 6:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/21 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2021 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/21 6:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2021 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/21 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2021 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/21 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2021 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/21 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2021 3:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2021 10:47 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 11/20/2021 4:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
Subject:
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V20 [ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse ]
I would appreciate it if you would not use my name in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection with
your "work".  Thank you.

I have finally made it clear that when the input to H(P,P) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts
the fact that (P) halts does not contradict this.

I would appreciate it if you would not use my name in >>>>>>>>>>>>> connection with
your "work".  I can't make you, but I trust you have some >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of
propriety.  Thank you.

Not in this case. You have only unfairly evaluated my work. >>>>>>>>>>>> Now is your chance for an accurate review.

No, your 'proof' is still a lie based on using the wrong >>>>>>>>>>> definitions of words.

The computation that is the input to H(P,P) WILL halt if >>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) returns the value 0 as long as P is the required
computation based on that H.

FAIL.

Everyone here defines the domain of function H to contain
elements that are only vague ideas.

LIE.


The Domain of a proper Halt decider is PRECISELY defined.

The domain of function H must actually be a set of elements >>>>>>>>>> that each specify a sequence of configurations.

And they do.

Function H maps elements of its domain D to {0,1}
Domain D is comprised of elements that specify a sequence of >>>>>>>>>> configurations.
H maps elements E of D to {0,1} on the basis of whether or not >>>>>>>>>> E reaches its final state.

Except that for the Computation P(P)

This is the exact vague idea that cannot possibly exist in the >>>>>>>> domain of H.

This is NOT a 'vague idea', P, which Linz describes as H^, is
PRECISELY defined in terms of H, which you claim to have a
definition of.

A specified sequence of configurations can be an element of the
domain of H. Some belief about how P(P) is supposed to behave
cannot be such an element.

And what is 'vague' about Linz's description of how to build H^,
which you call P.

On 11/20/2021 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

LIE.

Is the domain of H not representations of Computations?

The domain of H is sets of specified sequences of configurations that
may not be computations. (A computation is defined to halt).

It is the subtle difference between representation and specification
that causes you to get the wrong answer.

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.

There is no way to put [when run independently]
into any specified sequence of configurations.

Why not?

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] ???


--
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)