On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't mean he agrees
his previously worded claims were incorrect!
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes
back to just posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt"
was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) does halt
(evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not
halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does not
halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
worthless need look no further. It's only someone who wants to
understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
[a copy-paste of the same thing that is already proven to be stupid]
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough,
people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't mean he agrees
his previously worded claims were incorrect!
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since
that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes
back to just posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to halt"
was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) does halt
(evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does not
halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does not
halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
worthless need look no further. It's only someone who wants to
understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017) https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011) https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) sci.logic *On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
was defined to be impossible.
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
USENET Message-ID: <kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that enough, >>>>>> people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't mean he agrees >>>>>> his previously worded claims were incorrect!
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion)
which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered, since >>>>>> that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some argument.
So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and
goes back to just posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D)
does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that it
does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does
not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it does
not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was
correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim is
worthless need look no further. It's only someone who wants to
understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/
that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
;
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive* https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that
enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't mean >>>>>>>> he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect!
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's opinion) >>>>>>>> which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that unanswered,
since that might suggest to other readers that he's lost some
argument. So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous
complexity and goes back to just posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to
halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that D(D) >>>>>>> does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded that
it does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it does >>>>>>> not halt, and if a computation only halts because it thinks it
does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it >>>>>>> was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's claim >>>>>> is worthless need look no further. It's only someone who wants to >>>>>> understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ >>>>>> that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a solution >>>>> > was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any possible >>>>> > correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible questions. >>>>> > …
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
;
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or
false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
Which perfectly describes yourself.
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting Problem,
but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual requirements of
the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that >>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't >>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect! >>>>>>>>>>
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's
opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that
unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that >>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument. So he ignores the (in PO's opinion) >>>>>>>>>> extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting his core >>>>>>>>>> intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems to >>>>>>>>> halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out that
D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott responded >>>>>>>>> that it does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it >>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it
thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and >>>>>>>>> therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's
claim is worthless need look no further. It's only someone who >>>>>>>> wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to /correct
his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into all the mucky >>>>>>>> details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017) >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO)
sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:solution
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a
was defined to be impossible.possible
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possiblequestions.
…USENET Message-ID:
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question.
;
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true or >>>>>>> false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
Which perfectly describes yourself.
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
requirements of the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows
your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
The Linz H is an entirely different template
The Linz H is an entirely different template
The Linz H is an entirely different template
The Linz H is an entirely different template
YOU deflected this sub thread from its topic of Tarski to Halting in
your reply to Mike yesterday.
So, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar.
Apology expected.
On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that >>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect! >>>>>>>>>>>>
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that >>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that >>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument. So he ignores the (in PO's
opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just posting >>>>>>>>>>>> his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it seems >>>>>>>>>>> to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing out >>>>>>>>>>> that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) Olcott >>>>>>>>>>> responded that it does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks it >>>>>>>>>>> does not halt, and if a computation only halts because it >>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING >>>>>>>>>>> and therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's >>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further. It's only someone >>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to
/correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into all >>>>>>>>>> the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner (2017) >>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed (PART-TWO) >>>>>>>>> sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:questions.
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a >>>>>>>>> solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any >>>>>>>>> possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible
…USENET Message-ID:
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>> >
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true >>>>>>>>> or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
Which perfectly describes yourself.
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves
that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual
requirements of the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about shows
your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
So, H is there.
No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean he agrees his previously worded claims were incorrect! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unanswered, since that might suggest to other readers that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's lost some argument. So he ignores the (in PO's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it >>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were pointing >>>>>>>>>>>>> out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it and see) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott responded that it does not halt.
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because >>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS >>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that PO's >>>>>>>>>>>> claim is worthless need look no further. It's only someone >>>>>>>>>>>> who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, or to >>>>>>>>>>>> /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to dive into >>>>>>>>>>>> all the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them*
*better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner >>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011) >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
(PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that a >>>>>>>>>>> solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have any >>>>>>>>>>> possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible >>>>>>>>>>> questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>>>> >
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is true >>>>>>>>>>> or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie
Which perfectly describes yourself.
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not
contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves >>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting
Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the actual >>>>>>>> requirements of the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
shows your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
So, H is there.
No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
So, you don't understand that
I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect!
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that unanswered, since that might suggest to other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers that he's lost some argument. So he ignores the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further. It's only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or to /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dive into all the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner >>>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011) >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
(PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that >>>>>>>>>>>>> a solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have >>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is >>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
Which perfectly describes yourself.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie >>>>>>>>>>
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not >>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves >>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting >>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the
actual requirements of the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
shows your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
So, H is there.
No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
So, you don't understand that
I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually understand
what he is doing.
He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
accurate.
On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect!
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in PO's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't leave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that unanswered, since that might suggest to other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers that he's lost some argument. So he ignores the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity and goes back to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just posting his core intuition.
I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not halt, and if a computation only halts because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES NOT COUNT AS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING and therefore it was correct!"
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further. It's only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or to /correct his thinking/ that will be motivated to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dive into all the mucky details...
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and*
*two PhD computer science professors elaborate them* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. Hehner >>>>>>>>>>>>> (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011) >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed
(PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way that >>>>>>>>>>>>> a solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have >>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all possible >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is >>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
Which perfectly describes yourself.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive*
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie >>>>>>>>>>
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not >>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves >>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false.
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting >>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the
actual requirements of the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION.
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about
shows your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
So, H is there.
No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
So, you don't understand that
I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually understand
what he is doing.
He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in Ĥ
that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
accurate.
On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enough, people will suddenly agree with him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean he agrees his previously worded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims were incorrect!I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other readers that he's lost some argument. So he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes back to just posting his core intuition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it DOES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further. It's only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner (2011) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
Which perfectly describes yourself.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive* >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie >>>>>>>>>>>>
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood
shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood*
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns proves >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot even show that my statement is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any of the >>>>>>>>>>>> actual requirements of the halting problem.
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this
whole thread. That you are responding to things that I
didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking about >>>>>>>>>> shows your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
So, H is there.
No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
So, you don't understand that
I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
understand what he is doing.
He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state in
Ĥ that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
accurate.
No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited"
details represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
infinite loop to qy)
Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error.
You are just showing your total ignorance.
embedded_H refers to all of the states specified in his H template.
two of these states have merely been renamed indicating that they
have been integrated into Ĥ because H has been embedded in Ĥ.
His two start states are wrong as Ben agreed to years ago.
No TM ever has two q0 states.
My name embedded_H is much easier to understand than his
second q0 state.
On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which is for H saying that M applied to (M) Halts, which if M is Ĥ it
On 2/11/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/11/24 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/11/2024 9:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 11/02/2024 03:14, immibis wrote:
On 11/02/24 02:42, Mike Terry wrote:
Sometimes he changes the wording, thinking if he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that enough, people will suddenly agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. That doesn't mean he agrees his previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worded claims were incorrect!I thought tangent of "D(D) doesn't halt even though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems to halt" was quite amusing. When people were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out that D(D) does halt (evidence: just run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and see) Olcott responded that it does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If PO sees someone respond with a load of guff (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's opinion) which he doesn't really get, he can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leave that unanswered, since that might suggest to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other readers that he's lost some argument. So he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores the (in PO's opinion) extraneous complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes back to just posting his core intuition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Message-ID: <uorkac$1tiu7$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"You see, D(D) halts, but it only halts because it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks it does not halt, and if a computation only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts because it thinks it does not halt, then it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT COUNT AS HALTING and therefore it was correct!" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or something like that.
Yes it's bizarre. A reader simply wishing to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's claim is worthless need look no further. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only someone who wants to understand /where/ PO is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going wrong, or to /correct his thinking/ that will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated to dive into all the mucky details... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*My 2004 intuitions have proved to be correct and* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *two PhD computer science professors elaborate them* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *better than I have until now*
*The Halting Paradox* Bill Stoddart (2017)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
*Objective and Subjective Specifications* Eric C.R. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hehner (2017)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
*Problems with the Halting Problem* Eric C.R. Hehner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2011)
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (PART-TWO) sci.logic
*On 6/20/2004 11:31 AM, Peter Olcott wrote*
PREMISES:USENET Message-ID:
(1) The Halting Problem was specified in such a way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a solution
was defined to be impossible.
;
(2) The set of questions that are defined to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any possible
correct answer(s) forms a proper subset of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible questions.
…
CONCLUSION:
Therefore the Halting Problem is an ill-formed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
;
<kZiBc.103407$Gx4.18142@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: (Olcott 2024)
Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is isomorphic to asking whether the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true or false.
Nope.
Proven otherwise
Your statement are still just lies.
That is libelous.
No, it is a TRUE statement.
Which perfectly describes yourself.
*to say something that is not true in order to deceive* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you call my statement an intentional falsehood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows a reckless disregard for the truth
Nope, it is a statement of TRUTH.
*When you cannot even show that it is a falsehood* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you cannot even show exactly how template Ĥ does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict both Boolean values that embedded_H returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
that you cannot even show that my statement is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The falsehood is that you claim to be working on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, but you are not, since you don't use any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actual requirements of the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your H is not A COMPUTATION.
your input D is not A REPRESENTATION OF A COMPUTATION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, your claims are all LIES.
You can't even stay on topic. I never mention H in this >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole thread. That you are responding to things that I >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even say is a reckless disregard for the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really?
Lying again.
Look up at the quotes:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
The fact that you don't even check what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>> about shows your stupidity.
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
That IS NOT H IT IS CALLED H-HAT PAY ATTENTION
But Ĥ uses its copy of H that you call embedded_H.
So, H is there.
No H is not there you should see the screwing thing
that Linz calls embedded_H: Ĥq0 (a second start state)
Top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
So, you don't understand that
I understand that when Linz is all done with all of the
transformations and actually specifies the completed Ĥ
that he calls embedded_H *Ĥq0* on the top of page 3.
Nope, you THINK you understand that, but you don't actually
understand what he is doing.
He has no "embedded_H", and that Ĥq0 is the name of of the state
in Ĥ that is the beginning state for H, not ALL the states of H.
Figure 12.2 shows that he merely appends the infinite loop to qy
thus calling his Ĥq0 (second start state) embedded_H is perfectly
accurate.
No, because H was the states q0, qy, and qn and all the "omited"
details represented by the squiggly lines. The whole of Figure 12.1
Figure 12.2 shows the changes going from H to H' (the adding of the
infinite loop to qy)
Calling ONE state of a full machine as "The Machine" is just an error. >>>>
You are just showing your total ignorance.
embedded_H refers to all of the states specified in his H template.
two of these states have merely been renamed indicating that they
have been integrated into Ĥ because H has been embedded in Ĥ.
Then why did you say it was just Ĥq0 that represented embedded_H?
His two start states are wrong as Ben agreed to years ago.
No TM ever has two q0 states.
No, there is q0 and Ĥq0
Admittedly, his nomenclature is a bit awkward.
The execution of the Machine Ĥ starts at the state q0 (as he defines
q0 to be the starting state of all machines) with the expresion
q0 Wm
Which means at state q0, with a tape contents of Wm
It then goes through the steps to duplicate the tape and ends up at
state Ĥq0 which is the Ĥ machine equivalent of H's q0, at an expression
Ĥq0 Wm Wm
Meaning at state Ĥq0 with tape contents Wm Wm
and then (depending on the decision that H makes) to either
Ĥ∞
All of the above is correct.
*This improves on his notation making is more clear*
q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ // YES for M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts
q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // NO for M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not haltWhich is for H sayng that M applied to (M) Halts, which if M is Ĥ it
indicating that Ĥ doesn't halt or
Ĥ y0 qn y1
indicating it goes to state Ĥqn with the tape possible having symbols
y0 before the head, and y1 after the head.
My name embedded_H is much easier to understand than his
second q0 state.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 119:51:29 |
| Calls: | 6,704 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,607 |