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

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

These two are posted to comp.theory

[Olcott's theory]
On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 12:00:56 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:

 I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which

> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> examine) which rely on that mistake. The mistake Olcott seems to be
> making is inferring that just because those proofs are invalid then that
> somehow means that the halting problem itself is not undecidable.
>
> /Flibble


On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
> Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
> of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
> nowhere and never ends.
>
> /Flibble
>



--
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)