• Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V63 [ Linz Proof ] (Be

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Ben Bacarisse on Tue Mar 1 19:21:27 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 2/28/2022 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

    On 2/28/2022 8:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:

    Even Linz was confused by this. embedded_H is not supposed to report
    on itself or the computation that it is contained within.
    No one thinks it should. You don't know what Linz says even after all
    these years. If you want to know what Linz says, I am open to pertinent >>> questions on the topic.

    You for one have insisted that it should as your primary rebuttal to
    my work for six straight months.

    Quote please. You have a long track record of misunderstanding the points put to you.

    My "primary rebuttal" comes from your own claim that false is the
    correct answer despite the fact that computation represented halts,
    i.e. that you are not addressing the halting problem.


    See there you go, you are asserting that the fact that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts contradicts that fact that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that
    its input never halts.

    Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the computation that contains embedded_H and embedded_H is not supposed to determine the halt status of itself or the computation that contains it.

    Because halt deciders are deciders they only compute the mapping from
    their inputs to an accept or reject state. Because Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an
    actual input to embedded_H it is out-of-scope for embedded_H.

    --
    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)