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.
THIS WILL BE MY ONLY REPLY UNTIL EVERY POINT ABOVE IS FULLY ADDRESSED
Do you understand that a decider computes the mapping ONLY from its
inputs to an accept or reject state and does not compute any other mapping?
--
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)