On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
/Flibble
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning >>>>>>>> of the words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
peer review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
never halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
to H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
I am really sorry to hear that. :( I hope you live as long as possible without pain.
/Flibble
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning >>>>>>>> of the words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
peer review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
never halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
to H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
why you would be reversing course now.
I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
for the proofs.
/Flibble
olcott wrote:
[...]
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
on this prediction.
...
I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed
to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with
mine until after I fully formed my own view.
Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems. Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
in acting like a crank.
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
[...]
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
on this prediction.
...
I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem. >>>
People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view
agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
in acting like a crank.
If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
fundamentally broken.
Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
notion of truth that is actually broken.
Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is
by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category
error and Gödel must be wrong.
This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a delusional crank.
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows >>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why >>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its >>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
why you would be reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
why you would be reversing course now.
I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
for the proofs.
/Flibble
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 8:13 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
[...]
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong >>>>> on this prediction.
...
I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness >>>>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox.
See also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel >>>>>> Theorem.
People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's
view agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your >>>>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems. >>>>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also >>>>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
in acting like a crank.
If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
fundamentally broken.
Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible
human notion of truth that is actually broken.
Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction)
the only way that one can know that any expression of language is
true is by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a
category error and Gödel must be wrong.
This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
delusional crank.
Wittgenstein perfectly agrees and he was one of the leaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
When we boil things down to their barest essence as Turing Award
(1999) winner Fred Brooks suggests in his "No Silver Bullet—Essence
and Accident in Software Engineering" we find Wittgenstein's view of
1931 Gödel Incompleteness is exactly correct rather than a simplistic
misunderstanding.
The reason why I know this view is correct is the I discovered every
single detail of Wittgenstein's view before I ever heard of Wittgenstein.
This is quite weak a reason.
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Example:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>> words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something, >>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer >>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to >>>>>>>> its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on >>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never >>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to >>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied >>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal >>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means >>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not >>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make >>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are >>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal >>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't >>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to >>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show >>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
why you would be reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Example:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the >>>>>>>>>>>> windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>> words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is >>>>>>>>>>> why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>> of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on >>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will >>>>>>>> never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we >>>>>>>> have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has >>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist. >>>>>>>>
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this >>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct. >>>>>>>>
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal >>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example >>>>>>>> means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not >>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make >>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only >>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you >>>>>>>> goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which >>>>>>>> isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show >>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't >>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
no idea why you would be reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that Truth is
only something that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example
of this is the 3x+1 problem.
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.
When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.
FAIL.
Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.
/Flibble
On 2/18/22 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.
When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.
FAIL.
Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.
/Flibble
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings
The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
totally unrelated to its premises.
The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid
inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before logic
diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically related is
required).
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.
And what does this actual achieve? (except making it harder to do things).
On 2/18/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.
When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.
FAIL.
Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.
/Flibble
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings
The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
totally unrelated to its premises.
The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid
inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before
logic diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically
related is required).
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises. >>>>
And what does this actual achieve? (except making it harder to do
things).
It defines the notion of correct reasoning and realigns logic with
Aristotle's syllogism requiring a semantic connection between the
premises and conclusion.
Which does WHAT, ACTUALLY?
What useful statement does this allow you to prove, or false premise it allows you to keep from proving.
It over-rides and supersedes the classical logic definition of logical
entailment to make the word "proven" regain its common meaning.
No, it doesn't. since the need to prove your arguement means that the conclusion actually has been proven.
I suppose the one advantage would be it would disallow arguements based
on always false premises, which can then 'prove' false conclusions, but
that arguement can't actually be used anyway (even though you try).
We can no longer correctly say that "butterflies have wings" is
"proven" on the basis that "cows are not dogs" and "cows are not
airplanes".
The principle of explosion is also cancelled by this change.
Except that you never could say that, all you could say is that
butterflys have wings because it has been proven that since caows are
not dogs and cows are not airplains together are sufficient to show that butterflies have wings. Which is true,
On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.
When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.
FAIL.
Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.
/Flibble
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings
The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
totally unrelated to its premises.
You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you think
you are pointing to exists only in your head.
André
On 2022-02-18 19:19, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
accepted in the field as an axiom.
When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
introduce 'new' axioms.
FAIL.
Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
axioms.
/Flibble
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings
The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
totally unrelated to its premises.
You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you
think you are pointing to exists only in your head.
André
According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted
above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.
No, it isn't. I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly reach
this conclusion. But it makes it very clear that you don't understand
the definition you are citing at all.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:53:04 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |