Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 525 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 14:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-20 21:06 +0200
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:16 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 14:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 23:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 13:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 22:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:28 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-23 16:49 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-24 02:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 17:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:41 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 15:51 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 22:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:42 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-24 00:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 00:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 14:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 18:07 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 04:03 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 04:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 13:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:22 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 12:43 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-25 16:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 22:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 23:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 10:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 11:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 11:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 14:40 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 15:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 13:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 13:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 15:34 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 14:53 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 19:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 18:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 19:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 20:34 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 23:39 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 22:59 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:27 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 22:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:24 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 08:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 11:05 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 09:29 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:17 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 13:29 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:47 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 14:10 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-27 12:58 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 16:23 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:01 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:38 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:04 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:33 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 11:16 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 13:42 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 17:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 22:11 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 21:39 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 09:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 09:31 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:38 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 10:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:47 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 14:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 12:56 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:25 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 21:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:50 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:10 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 11:52 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:52 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:40 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:51 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 22:15 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:00 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 12:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:50 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:15 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:55 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 17:50 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 16:58 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 18:27 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 18:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 19:54 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 23:34 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 22:44 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:42 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 18:57 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 21:08 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 20:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 09:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 08:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 10:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 12:00 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:14 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:41 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:11 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:26 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 11:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:31 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 13:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:43 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-30 08:54 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 10:58 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 13:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:34 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 08:56 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:04 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:22 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:54 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 11:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 20:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-26 01:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:32 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 09:57 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-27 00:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:06 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 17:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 15:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 01:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 20:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 01:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 20:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:28 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 05:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 13:41 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 14:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 13:28 -0700
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 11:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 10:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 17:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:51 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:33 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 19:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 09:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 19:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 02:45 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 21:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 21:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 11:15 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 23:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 02:02 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 07:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:35 +0100
Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:46 -0500
Re: Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:01 -0500
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:13 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:23 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:44 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 21:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 23:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ]( Honest Dialogue ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 15:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 23:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:54 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:37 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-05 22:51 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-09 21:14 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 19:46 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:06 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 02:41 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 03:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 16:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:10 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:15 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 00:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:16 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:03 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:09 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben's key param agreement ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:08 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 17:32 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 23:11 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 01:36 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 07:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 01:58 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:30 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:01 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 16:15 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:29 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. (fixed type) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:42 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. // fixed typo (link added) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 23:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 17:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 15:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 22:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 16:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 19:49 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:05 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:19 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:44 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:49 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:20 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 10:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 21:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 22:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 16:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:06 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:12 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:25 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:47 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 16:54 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 22:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-14 13:22 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:51 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:21 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 09:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:31 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:38 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:07 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Halting Problem is solved for Ĥ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 23:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 04:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:47 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-30 18:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 22:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 16:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 17:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 20:01 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 22:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 22:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 08:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 07:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 10:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:11 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 14:26 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 15:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 15:26 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:50 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 16:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 19:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 20:24 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 10:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:52 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:43 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:04 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct [ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 07:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 20:07 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:05 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 21:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 15:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 15:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 16:56 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:04 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-26 11:06 +0000
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 06:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 07:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 15:36 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-26 18:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:38 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 19:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 22:49 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:57 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-27 13:47 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:16 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-27 12:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-28 11:32 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 15:13 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 20:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 10:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 05:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 16:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700
Page 15 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 27 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 15:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <w5edne8d06OkxpX8nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37502 |
On 8/2/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/1/2021 5:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>> I am happy you have a notation you like. Are you prepared to address >>> that fact that your H^ is not "as in Linz"? >> >> My Ĥ is exactly the Linz Ĥ with the additional elaboration that the >> second wildcard state transition ⊢* is defined to be a simulating halt >> decider. > > No. I've explained many times now why your Ĥ is not at all "the Linz > Ĥ". Do you see any point in my doing so again? > >>> We all know you are declaring that to be correct. Here's why your Ĥ is >>> not "as in Linz". Linz requires that >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> Any Ĥ that eventually transitions to Ĥ.qn on input wM must do so >>> if, and only if, the encoded M applied to wM does not halt. But you've >>> given us a case where your Ĥ is not like this: >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> And when we eliminate the fallacy of equivocation error we have >> >> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn > > The only thing I think you are equivocating on is pretending that Ĥ[0] > is not Ĥ, and it doesn't look as if you've removed that error. I think > you /should/ remove it so that you can be saying something of value > about Ĥ. > It is clear from the text that Linz does specify at least three different instances of Ĥ, The TM the TMD input ⟨Ĥ⟩ and a copy of this TMD input. Failing to keep track of which is which when the simulated execution is analyzed simply ignores a key salient detail. >> The way that you do it when your twin bother commits a crime that >> makes you guilty. >> >> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ only halts because the simulation of the >> the input to Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ was aborted. >> >> (a) The simulation of the input to Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ >> was aborted because neither ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ nor ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ could >> ever possibly reach their final states. >> >> (b) Because neither ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ nor ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ could ever possibly reach >> their final states we know that they never halt. >> >> (c) Because they never halt we know that Ĥ[0].qx correctly decided >> that its input never halts. >> >> This is the same as: X > Y & Y > Z therefore X > Z >> I do seem to have a correct chain of inference. >> I do not think that you can point to any error in >> this chain of inference. >> >> In an honest dialogue when you would disagree that a >> chain of inference derives a correct conclusion you >> would point to a specific error in this chain of inference. >> >> What is the error in (a)(b)(c) ? > > Far too many to go into all of them (if you are not inclined to correct > anything, just jump to number 7) but ere are some: > > (1) Unless Ĥ[0] is just another name for Ĥ you are not saying anything I > care about. What matters is what Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does. > > (2) TMs don't "abort". The sequence of configurations ends. > This seems to diverge from an honest dialogue in that it seems like you are saying that the concept of a simulating halt decider cannot possibly exist. Do you agree that a simulating halt decider can abort its simulation of its input? If not please provide all of the details of why you disagree. > (3) Stop talking about what "could possibly" happen. TMs do what they > do. There are no "possibilities". > When the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx examines the behavior of its pure simulation its input ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ it determines that this input never reaches its final state. > (4) ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ and ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ are strings. A string does not "reach" anything. > Strings don't even have states that can be reached. I can unravel > this, but why must your readers work hard to unpick your metaphors? > The Simulation of ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ on input ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ is computationally equivalent to the execution of Ĥ[1] on input ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ thus the Simulation of ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ either reaches or fails to reach a final state. > (5) Ĥ[0].qx is a state. It does not decide anything. (Again, I can > guess what you mean but you asked for help.) > Ĥ[0].qx is stipulated to be the halt decider named H. In the erroneous Linz notation it is at the second start state of Ĥ. > (6) States don't have input. Whilst I could guess that you mean "the > tape" at the point the state is entered", states in a TM may be > entered many times so there is no obvious single "input". > Linz refers to it as: "The input to H" thus making your "correction" within the context of Linz, incorrect. > (7) The correct behaviour of Ĥ is not based on (a) and (b) but on what > Linz says about Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. Your Ĥ does not behave as Linz's > Ĥ should, even in the one case you care about. You slightly changed the subject. We are not talking about the behavior of Ĥ. We are talking about what the future behavior of the input to the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx would be. When we stay 100% perfectly focused on exactly this we can see that the future behavior of the input to Ĥ.qx never reaches its final state. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 01:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87bl6f5qvy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37506 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/2/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/1/2021 5:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>> I am happy you have a notation you like. Are you prepared to address >>>> that fact that your H^ is not "as in Linz"? >>> >>> My Ĥ is exactly the Linz Ĥ with the additional elaboration that the >>> second wildcard state transition ⊢* is defined to be a simulating halt >>> decider. >> No. I've explained many times now why your Ĥ is not at all "the Linz >> Ĥ". Do you see any point in my doing so again? I suspect not. You certainly have not asked a single question that could help you to understand why your Ĥ is irrelevant. >>>> We all know you are declaring that to be correct. Here's why your Ĥ is >>>> not "as in Linz". Linz requires that >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> Any Ĥ that eventually transitions to Ĥ.qn on input wM must do so >>>> if, and only if, the encoded M applied to wM does not halt. But you've >>>> given us a case where your Ĥ is not like this: >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> >>> And when we eliminate the fallacy of equivocation error we have >>> >>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >> The only thing I think you are equivocating on is pretending that Ĥ[0] >> is not Ĥ, and it doesn't look as if you've removed that error. I think >> you /should/ remove it so that you can be saying something of value >> about Ĥ. > > It is clear from the text that Linz does specify at least three > different instances of Ĥ, The TM the TMD input ⟨Ĥ⟩ and a copy of this > TMD input. Still equivocating. Either Ĥ[0] = Ĥ or you are wasting everyone's time. (This is mathematical equality. Ĥ is a tuple of sets. If Ĥ[0] is not exactly identical in every way to Ĥ then I don't care about it. Note that I'm not disputing your right, for ease of explanation, to give identical things more than one name. But the same permission allows me to use any of the names because they name the same thing.) You are wrong because Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn where Linz requires that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. Either you ask questions that might help you to understand what I'm saying, or you can just repeat again, in ever greater detail, what happens in that ⊢* as if the exact way in which you are wrong is the key thing you want to tell the world. It's up to you. Please don't think I don't know what you are saying. I understand all the copying and levels and so on. But the details don't make you right because it's the outcome that makes you wrong. No explanation of how you get the wrong behaviour, no matter how detailed, makes the wrong behaviour right. Your Ĥ is just one of countless other TMs that do not do what Linz says is impossible, even for this one input. I'll leave it there. If you really want my comments on your replies to the errors you asked me to point it, I'll post again, but it it's all noise compared to the big mistake. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 19:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <xLednaPs_ZSXCZX8nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37507 |
On 8/2/2021 7:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/2/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/1/2021 5:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>>>> I am happy you have a notation you like. Are you prepared to address >>>>> that fact that your H^ is not "as in Linz"? >>>> >>>> My Ĥ is exactly the Linz Ĥ with the additional elaboration that the >>>> second wildcard state transition ⊢* is defined to be a simulating halt >>>> decider. >>> No. I've explained many times now why your Ĥ is not at all "the Linz >>> Ĥ". Do you see any point in my doing so again? > > I suspect not. You certainly have not asked a single question that > could help you to understand why your Ĥ is irrelevant. > >>>>> We all know you are declaring that to be correct. Here's why your Ĥ is >>>>> not "as in Linz". Linz requires that >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> Any Ĥ that eventually transitions to Ĥ.qn on input wM must do so >>>>> if, and only if, the encoded M applied to wM does not halt. But you've >>>>> given us a case where your Ĥ is not like this: >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>> And when we eliminate the fallacy of equivocation error we have >>>> >>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>> The only thing I think you are equivocating on is pretending that Ĥ[0] >>> is not Ĥ, and it doesn't look as if you've removed that error. I think >>> you /should/ remove it so that you can be saying something of value >>> about Ĥ. >> >> It is clear from the text that Linz does specify at least three >> different instances of Ĥ, The TM the TMD input ⟨Ĥ⟩ and a copy of this >> TMD input. > > Still equivocating. Either Ĥ[0] = Ĥ or you are wasting everyone's time. > Ĥ[0] = Ĥ Ĥ[1] != Ĥ Ĥ[2] != Ĥ > (This is mathematical equality. Ĥ is a tuple of sets. If Ĥ[0] is not > exactly identical in every way to Ĥ then I don't care about it. Note The different instances of Ĥ are different in a crucial way and that is their placement in the execution trace. > that I'm not disputing your right, for ease of explanation, to give > identical things more than one name. But the same permission allows me > to use any of the names because they name the same thing.) > Only because their differing placement in the execution trace do they have different halting behavior. This is a crucial distinction. > You are wrong because > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > where Linz requires that > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > Linz could require that all cats must be dogs, the verifiable fact is that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to Ĥ.qx is correctly decided as never halting. If you really do sincerely want an actual honest dialogue you would carefully work through all the steps to confirm that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to Ĥ.qx never halts. Once we have mutual agreement that Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts and Ĥ does halt, then we have the basis to go to the next step and resolve the actual paradox. As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the paradox remains unresolved. > Either you ask questions that might help you to understand what I'm > saying, or you can just repeat again, in ever greater detail, what > happens in that ⊢* as if the exact way in which you are wrong is the key > thing you want to tell the world. It's up to you. > > Please don't think I don't know what you are saying. I understand all > the copying and levels and so on. But the details don't make you right > because it's the outcome that makes you wrong. No explanation of how > you get the wrong behaviour, no matter how detailed, makes the wrong > behaviour right. Your Ĥ is just one of countless other TMs that do not > do what Linz says is impossible, even for this one input. > > I'll leave it there. If you really want my comments on your replies to > the errors you asked me to point it, I'll post again, but it it's all > noise compared to the big mistake. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 02:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87o8af47y0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37510 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/2/2021 7:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/2/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2021 5:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I am happy you have a notation you like. Are you prepared to address >>>>>> that fact that your H^ is not "as in Linz"? >>>>> >>>>> My Ĥ is exactly the Linz Ĥ with the additional elaboration that the >>>>> second wildcard state transition ⊢* is defined to be a simulating halt >>>>> decider. >>>> No. I've explained many times now why your Ĥ is not at all "the Linz >>>> Ĥ". Do you see any point in my doing so again? >> I suspect not. You certainly have not asked a single question that >> could help you to understand why your Ĥ is irrelevant. >> >>>>>> We all know you are declaring that to be correct. Here's why your Ĥ is >>>>>> not "as in Linz". Linz requires that >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>> >>>>>> Any Ĥ that eventually transitions to Ĥ.qn on input wM must do so >>>>>> if, and only if, the encoded M applied to wM does not halt. But you've >>>>>> given us a case where your Ĥ is not like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> And when we eliminate the fallacy of equivocation error we have >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>>> The only thing I think you are equivocating on is pretending that Ĥ[0] >>>> is not Ĥ, and it doesn't look as if you've removed that error. I think >>>> you /should/ remove it so that you can be saying something of value >>>> about Ĥ. >>> >>> It is clear from the text that Linz does specify at least three >>> different instances of Ĥ, The TM the TMD input ⟨Ĥ⟩ and a copy of this >>> TMD input. >> Still equivocating. Either Ĥ[0] = Ĥ or you are wasting everyone's time. >> > > Ĥ[0] = Ĥ > Ĥ[1] != Ĥ > Ĥ[2] != Ĥ Switching to the strings, if ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ != ⟨Ĥ⟩ or ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ != ⟨Ĥ⟩ then your Ĥ is not built using the correct rules. That's up to you, but you did once claim to be addressing the proof in Linz. Switching back to TMs, two equal strings, like ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ and ⟨Ĥ⟩, can't encode unequal TMs. But, as usual, this is a side error. It had nothing to do with why your Ĥ is irrelevant but perhaps you hope to coax the world down this rabbit hole so the big mistake goes unnoticed. (I note that since you are using symbols here, it's possible the three formulas above might just be math poems. You might be use equality and non-equality in some metaphorical sense.) >> (This is mathematical equality. Ĥ is a tuple of sets. If Ĥ[0] is not >> exactly identical in every way to Ĥ then I don't care about it. Note > > The different instances of Ĥ are different in a crucial way and that > is their placement in the execution trace. You suggest above that you have multiple non-equal TMs. That's not how the "hat" construction works. >> that I'm not disputing your right, for ease of explanation, to give >> identical things more than one name. But the same permission allows me >> to use any of the names because they name the same thing.) > > Only because their differing placement in the execution trace do they > have different halting behavior. This is a crucial distinction. Again an irrelevant rabbit hole that I suspect you'd like me to follow you down. >> You are wrong because >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> where Linz requires that >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > Linz could require that all cats must be dogs, I suppose so. And if you claimed that you had a cat "exactly and precisely as in Linz" you'd have to show it was dog. If you couldn't, you might agree that Linz's cat-dogs don't exist. After all, he doesn't think they exist either, so it's easy to agree with him. Anyway, It appears you think that Linz's Ĥs that transitions to qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt are as impossible as his cat-dogs. Great. You are correct. You once claimed to have a TM "exactly and precisely as in Linz" that everyone else was claiming to be impossible. You don't anymore. You now have an Ĥ that does something entirely mundane, namely Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. Such TMs are ten-a-penny, though most are probably nothing like as elaborate as yours with all the nested simulations and the like. > the verifiable fact is that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to Ĥ.qx is correctly > decided as never halting. (I'm going to ignore errors that I've already pointed out.) > If you really do sincerely want an actual honest dialogue you would > carefully work through all the steps to confirm that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > to Ĥ.qx never halts. If you want me to comment on that, write it without the errors. It has two, both of which I've commented on before. If you are sincere, you will want to write clearly and without errors. > Once we have mutual agreement that Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its > input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts and Ĥ does halt, then we have the basis to > go to the next step and resolve the actual paradox. There is no paradox. That Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ clearly halts is not paradoxical. It's just not the sort of TM the proof is talking about. And how could it be? The "Linz Ĥ" is as illogical as a cat that is a dog. > As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the > paradox remains unresolved. There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 21:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <NsudnY99rthDOJX8nZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37513 |
On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/2/2021 7:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> > (I'm going to ignore errors that I've already pointed out.) > >> If you really do sincerely want an actual honest dialogue you would >> carefully work through all the steps to confirm that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> to Ĥ.qx never halts. > > If you want me to comment on that, write it without the errors. It has > two, both of which I've commented on before. If you are sincere, you > will want to write clearly and without errors. > >> Once we have mutual agreement that Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its >> input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts and Ĥ does halt, then we have the basis to >> go to the next step and resolve the actual paradox. > > There is no paradox. That Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ > clearly halts is not paradoxical. It's just not the sort of TM the > proof is talking about. And how could it be? The "Linz Ĥ" is as > illogical as a cat that is a dog. > >> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >> paradox remains unresolved. > > There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of > TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 21:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <R04OI.16683$gE.5539@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #37515 |
On 8/2/21 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/2/2021 7:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> > >> (I'm going to ignore errors that I've already pointed out.) >> >>> If you really do sincerely want an actual honest dialogue you would >>> carefully work through all the steps to confirm that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>> to Ĥ.qx never halts. >> >> If you want me to comment on that, write it without the errors. It has >> two, both of which I've commented on before. If you are sincere, you >> will want to write clearly and without errors. >> >>> Once we have mutual agreement that Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its >>> input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts and Ĥ does halt, then we have the basis to >>> go to the next step and resolve the actual paradox. >> >> There is no paradox. That Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> clearly halts is not paradoxical. It's just not the sort of TM the >> proof is talking about. And how could it be? The "Linz Ĥ" is as >> illogical as a cat that is a dog. >> >>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>> paradox remains unresolved. >> >> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >> > > Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of > determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an > input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run > forever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > But it doesn't. Right, so H(P,I) has the problem to determine what the machine with input represented by the deciders input would do. Will that machine, whose represenentation is given to it, Halt in a finite number of steps or not. I.e. H((H^),(H^)) needs to decide what H^(H^) will do. NOT what its partial simulation will do, what the ACTUAL machines will do. H gets it wrong, as H((H^),(H^)) says non-Halting when H^(H^) is .halting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 13:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87zgtx2wxn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37515 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/2/2021 7:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>
>> (I'm going to ignore errors that I've already pointed out.)
>>
>>> If you really do sincerely want an actual honest dialogue you would
>>> carefully work through all the steps to confirm that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> to Ĥ.qx never halts.
>> If you want me to comment on that, write it without the errors. It has
>> two, both of which I've commented on before. If you are sincere, you
>> will want to write clearly and without errors.
>>
>>> Once we have mutual agreement that Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its
>>> input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts and Ĥ does halt, then we have the basis to
>>> go to the next step and resolve the actual paradox.
>> There is no paradox. That Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> clearly halts is not paradoxical. It's just not the sort of TM the
>> proof is talking about. And how could it be? The "Linz Ĥ" is as
>> illogical as a cat that is a dog.
>>
>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the
>>> paradox remains unresolved.
>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of
>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ:
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts
> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts
> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts
> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts
Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can
tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more?
Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined
by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn.
Linz is equally clear that this is wrong. You even helpfully keep
quoting Linz telling you it's wrong:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
You can repeat, again and again, that "Ĥ.qx correctly decides"
something, but you've already told the world that the computation halts
when is should not. Your Ĥ is not doing what it should to show a fault
in Linz's proof. It's doing something else that is of no interest to
anyone.
(It's possible that just can't see why it is that those two lines from
Linz are telling you that your Ĥ does is wrong. You've struggled with
what this notation really means, so it's possible. But reasonable
student would ask if they could not see that Linz is telling you your Ĥ
is wrong.)
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
> an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
> forever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Really? Well scan my tape and call me halting!
If you had had the two TMs you lied about having (sorry, used "poetic
license" to say you had) you could have run
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩
and
H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
and you would have seen, right away, that H(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) is wrong about
Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩). Maybe you did and that's why you've spent 30 months waking back
that lie^H^H^H poetic license.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 11:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <Rr6dnWKhH4ejIJf8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37599 |
On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/2/2021 7:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >> >>> (I'm going to ignore errors that I've already pointed out.) >>> >>>> If you really do sincerely want an actual honest dialogue you would >>>> carefully work through all the steps to confirm that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>> to Ĥ.qx never halts. >>> If you want me to comment on that, write it without the errors. It has >>> two, both of which I've commented on before. If you are sincere, you >>> will want to write clearly and without errors. >>> >>>> Once we have mutual agreement that Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its >>>> input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts and Ĥ does halt, then we have the basis to >>>> go to the next step and resolve the actual paradox. >>> There is no paradox. That Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>> clearly halts is not paradoxical. It's just not the sort of TM the >>> proof is talking about. And how could it be? The "Linz Ĥ" is as >>> illogical as a cat that is a dog. >>> >>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >> >> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > > Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can > tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? > > Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined > by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that > > Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt As explained in complete detail below: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn because M applied to wM does not halt where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt We can know that Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state whether or not the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx aborts it simulation of Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩), therefore we know that Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) never halts. Therefore we know that M applied to wM does not halt. > Linz is equally clear that this is wrong. You even helpfully keep > quoting Linz telling you it's wrong: > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > You can repeat, again and again, that "Ĥ.qx correctly decides" > something, but you've already told the world that the computation halts > when is should not. Your Ĥ is not doing what it should to show a fault > in Linz's proof. It's doing something else that is of no interest to > anyone. > > (It's possible that just can't see why it is that those two lines from > Linz are telling you that your Ĥ does is wrong. You've struggled with > what this notation really means, so it's possible. But reasonable > student would ask if they could not see that Linz is telling you your Ĥ > is wrong.) > >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of >> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and >> an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run >> forever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > Really? Well scan my tape and call me halting! > > If you had had the two TMs you lied about having (sorry, used "poetic > license" to say you had) you could have run > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ > > and > > H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > > and you would have seen, right away, that H(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) is wrong about > Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩). Maybe you did and that's why you've spent 30 months waking back > that lie^H^H^H poetic license. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 20:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87czqt2ewt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37605 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>> >>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>> >>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >> >> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can >> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >> >> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined >> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > As explained in complete detail below: > Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been in dispute for some time. > because M applied to wM does not halt > where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above > and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. > > Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying > machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if > Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ into the above: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > We can know that Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) = Ĥ. > final state whether or not the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx aborts it You keep telling me that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches a final state. You even tell me the final state. > simulation of Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩), therefore we know that Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) > never halts. Therefore we know that M applied to wM does not halt. You keep telling me that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches the final state Ĥ.qn. Are you changing your mind after all this time? No, you are searching for some form of words that will make the wrong answer sound right. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 17:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <8YKdnVBaxrJ_i5b8nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37609 |
On 8/4/2021 2:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>>> >>>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>> >>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>> >>> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can >>> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >>> >>> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined >>> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> As explained in complete detail below: >> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been > in dispute for some time. > >> because M applied to wM does not halt >> where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above >> and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. >> >> Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying >> machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if >> Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt > > That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz > expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ into > the above: > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > It is not the first Ĥ that is being referred to it is *only* the machine represented by the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is being referred to. That machine never reaches its final state. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. That you persistently ignore this distinction really seems to be a diverge from an honest dialogue. >> We can know that Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its > > Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) = Ĥ. > >> final state whether or not the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx aborts it > > You keep telling me that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches a final state. You > even tell me the final state. > >> simulation of Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩), therefore we know that Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) >> never halts. Therefore we know that M applied to wM does not halt. > > You keep telling me that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches the final state Ĥ.qn. > Are you changing your mind after all this time? No, you are searching > for some form of words that will make the wrong answer sound right. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 00:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87y29g23sk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37617 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/4/2021 2:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>>>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>>>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>> >>>> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can >>>> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >>>> >>>> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined >>>> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> As explained in complete detail below: >>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been >> in dispute for some time. >> >>> because M applied to wM does not halt >>> where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above >>> and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. >>> >>> Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying >>> machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if >>> Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt >> That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz >> expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ into >> the above: >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > It is not the first Ĥ that is being referred to it is *only* the > machine represented by the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is being referred to. The machine represented by ⟨Ĥ⟩ is Ĥ. There is only one Ĥ being discussed here -- yours. > That machine > never reaches its final state. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn, or so you've told us. Are you changing your story? I'd like an answer. It's not a hard question. > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. > > That you persistently ignore this distinction really seems to be a > diverge from an honest dialogue. If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an exact copy. You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. is true of Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. But do say if it isn't. I'd like there to be another reason why your claims are irrelevant -- the more the merrier. Please tell us that Ĥ[1] != Ĥ or that ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ != ⟨Ĥ⟩. >> You keep telling me that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches the final state Ĥ.qn. >> Are you changing your mind after all this time? You are not answering questions, are you? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 22:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <no-dnYnca_3rxZb8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37618 |
On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/4/2021 2:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>>>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>>>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>>>>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>> >>>>> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can >>>>> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >>>>> >>>>> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined >>>>> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> As explained in complete detail below: >>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been >>> in dispute for some time. >>> >>>> because M applied to wM does not halt >>>> where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above >>>> and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. >>>> >>>> Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying >>>> machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if >>>> Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt >>> That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz >>> expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ into >>> the above: >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >> >> It is not the first Ĥ that is being referred to it is *only* the >> machine represented by the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is being referred to. > > The machine represented by ⟨Ĥ⟩ is Ĥ. There is only one Ĥ being > discussed here -- yours. > >> That machine >> never reaches its final state. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn, or so you've told us. Are you changing > your story? I'd like an answer. It's not a hard question. > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. >> >> That you persistently ignore this distinction really seems to be a >> diverge from an honest dialogue. > > If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical > then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an > exact copy. > When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to the store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a liar. > You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change > that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of > Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. Turing machines are not identical to strings. Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely ignore those things that you agree with. Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it? If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being disagreeable you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point until we reach mutual agreement. All other points will not be discussed until we reach mutual agreement on this point. > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. > > is true of > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > But do say if it isn't. I'd like there to be another reason why your > claims are irrelevant -- the more the merrier. Please tell us that Ĥ[1] > != Ĥ or that ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ != ⟨Ĥ⟩. > >>> You keep telling me that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches the final state Ĥ.qn. >>> Are you changing your mind after all this time? > > You are not answering questions, are you? > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 23:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <psJOI.67$WG5.22@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #37628 |
On 8/4/21 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/4/2021 2:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a >>>>>>>>> contradiction the >>>>>>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong >>>>>>>> sort of >>>>>>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort >>>>>>>> of Ĥ: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I >>>>>> can >>>>>> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is >>>>>> determined >>>>>> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> As explained in complete detail below: >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been >>>> in dispute for some time. >>>> >>>>> because M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above >>>>> and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. >>>>> >>>>> Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying >>>>> machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if >>>>> Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt >>>> That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz >>>> expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>> into >>>> the above: >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>> >>> It is not the first Ĥ that is being referred to it is *only* the >>> machine represented by the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is being referred to. >> >> The machine represented by ⟨Ĥ⟩ is Ĥ. There is only one Ĥ being >> discussed here -- yours. >> >>> That machine >>> never reaches its final state. >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn, or so you've told us. Are you changing >> your story? I'd like an answer. It's not a hard question. >> > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. It goes to H^.qn because H decides that H (H^) (H^) will not halt, but H is shown to be in error because H^ (H^) does halt. > >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. >>> >>> That you persistently ignore this distinction really seems to be a >>> diverge from an honest dialogue. >> >> If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical >> then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an >> exact copy. >> > > When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to the > store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a liar. Then this concept of Twin is not applicable to Turing Machines. Alternate copies of a Turing Machine will ALWAYS behave xactly the same. > >> You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change >> that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of >> > > Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. > Turing machines are not identical to strings. > Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state > whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. H^ (H^) Halt because H decides that it thinks that H^ (H^) will not halt. The fact that H^ (H^) does halt means that H was wrong. It doesn't matter that H never completed its simulation of H^ (H^) but aborted it, the trace of H^ (H^) shows what it would have done if H had simulated it a bit farther. An aborted simulation NEVER proves non-Halting. > > If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of > the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely > ignore those things that you agree with. > > Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its > final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it? No, Aborted simulations don't prove anything, especially when the traces you UNSOUND logic. > > If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being disagreeable > you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point until we reach > mutual agreement. All other points will not be discussed until we reach > mutual agreement on this point. Maybe you should do the same, and try to point to an actual ERROR in the statements people make to point out where YOU are in error. If you don't think they are right, show the actual logical error in them. People are mostly working directly off definitions, so it should be easy if you are right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 02:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <20276f21-9bdc-4e64-9b20-1dc04bf8fa8an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37628 |
On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 04:18:21 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > > > > If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical > > then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an > > exact copy. > > > When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to the > store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a liar. > > > You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change > > that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of > > > Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. > Turing machines are not identical to strings. > Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state > whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. > > If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of > the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely > ignore those things that you agree with. > > Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its > final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it? > H_Hat <H_Hat> halts. So if it is simulated by a UTM, the simulation UTM <H_HAT><H_Hat> also halts. But the halt decider embedded in H_Hat is not a UTM. It's a near UTM, that has abort logic. Somewhere the abort logic must be triggered, which causes H_Hat<H_Hat> to halt. H<H_Hat><H_Hat> also triggers this abort logic, so H<H_Hat><H_Hat> reports "false" (non-halting). > > If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being disagreeable > you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point until we reach > mutual agreement. All other points will not be discussed until we reach > mutual agreement on this point. > We agree that H_Hat<H_Hat> halts. We agree that H <H_Hat> <H_Hat> reports "false" (non-halting). Can't you see the obvious?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 07:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <lemdnTsHxYH0SZb8nZ2dnUU7-YfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37636 |
On 8/5/2021 4:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 04:18:21 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>> If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical >>> then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an >>> exact copy. >>> >> When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to the >> store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a liar. >> >>> You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change >>> that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of >>> >> Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. >> Turing machines are not identical to strings. >> Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state >> whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. >> >> If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of >> the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely >> ignore those things that you agree with. >> >> Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its >> final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it? >> > H_Hat <H_Hat> halts. So if it is simulated by a UTM, the simulation > UTM <H_HAT><H_Hat> also halts. It is very easily proven that ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly ever reach its final state. If it stops running without reaching is final state then this does not count as halting. > But the halt decider embedded in H_Hat is not a UTM. It's a near UTM, > that has abort logic. Somewhere the abort logic must be triggered, > which causes H_Hat<H_Hat> to halt. If it stops running without reaching is final state then this does not count as halting. It can not possibly reach its final state whether or not its simulation is ever aborted, therefore it never halts. > H<H_Hat><H_Hat> also triggers this abort logic, so H<H_Hat><H_Hat> > reports "false" (non-halting). >> >> If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being disagreeable >> you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point until we reach >> mutual agreement. All other points will not be discussed until we reach >> mutual agreement on this point. >> > We agree that H_Hat<H_Hat> halts. > We agree that H <H_Hat> <H_Hat> reports "false" (non-halting). > > Can't you see the obvious? > The mistake that you are making is counting stopping without reaching a final state as halting, it is not. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 20:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <2m0PI.7803$lK.6350@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #37637 |
On 8/5/21 7:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/5/2021 4:02 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 04:18:21 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>> If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not >>>> identical >>>> then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an >>>> exact copy. >>>> >>> When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to the >>> store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a liar. >>> >>>> You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change >>>> that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of >>>> >>> Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. >>> Turing machines are not identical to strings. >>> Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state >>> whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. >>> >>> If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of >>> the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely >>> ignore those things that you agree with. >>> >>> Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its >>> final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it? >>> >> H_Hat <H_Hat> halts. So if it is simulated by a UTM, the simulation >> UTM <H_HAT><H_Hat> also halts. > > It is very easily proven that ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly ever reach its > final state. If it stops running without reaching is final state then > this does not count as halting. Actually that is a MEANINGLESS statement as representations don't execute. Since you admit that H^(<H^>) does halt, the UTM(<H^>, <H^>) also halts, and thus the fact that H's simulation is aborted before it gets there proves nothing except that you don't know what you are talking about. > >> But the halt decider embedded in H_Hat is not a UTM. It's a near UTM, >> that has abort logic. Somewhere the abort logic must be triggered, >> which causes H_Hat<H_Hat> to halt. > > If it stops running without reaching is final state then this does not > count as halting. It can not possibly reach its final state whether or > not its simulation is ever aborted, therefore it never halts. WRONG. If you modify THAT copy (so you don't touch what is on the tape) we see that H'(<H^>, <H^>) where the H' version has had its aborting removed (and thus converted into a UTM, while H^ still uses the original version of H) we see that this will halt and correctly decide that H^(<H^>) is halting. This shows that H is wrong. > >> H<H_Hat><H_Hat> also triggers this abort logic, so H<H_Hat><H_Hat> >> reports "false" (non-halting). >>> >>> If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being disagreeable >>> you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point until we reach >>> mutual agreement. All other points will not be discussed until we reach >>> mutual agreement on this point. >>> >> We agree that H_Hat<H_Hat> halts. >> We agree that H <H_Hat> <H_Hat> reports "false" (non-halting). >> >> Can't you see the obvious? >> > > The mistake that you are making is counting stopping without reaching a > final state as halting, it is not. > No. H^(<H^>) will ALWAYS run to completion if its execution is not incorrectly Halted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 23:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87zgtvzgfl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37628 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/4/2021 2:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>>>>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>>>>>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can >>>>>> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined >>>>>> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> As explained in complete detail below: >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been >>>> in dispute for some time. >>>> >>>>> because M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above >>>>> and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. >>>>> >>>>> Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying >>>>> machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if >>>>> Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt >>>> That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz >>>> expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ into >>>> the above: >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>> >>> It is not the first Ĥ that is being referred to it is *only* the >>> machine represented by the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is being referred to. >> The machine represented by ⟨Ĥ⟩ is Ĥ. There is only one Ĥ being >> discussed here -- yours. >> >>> That machine >>> never reaches its final state. >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn, or so you've told us. Are you changing >> your story? I'd like an answer. It's not a hard question. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn OK, so you are not changing your story. Linz tells us that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. so your Ĥ is not interesting. Such TMs are ten-a-penny and none of them have anything to say about the proof in Linz. You should apologise for hooking people in with a lie 30 months ago. You don't have anything that anyone would consider to be impossible. What is impossible, and you once false claimed to have, is a TM that behaves as Linz says, if only for this one case. > because the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. The reason is not relevant. That's good because the above is nonsense, iteral nonsense. What is the input "to"? It can't be Ĥ.qx because that's a state and states don't have input. It can't be Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because that's a TM configuration (state+tape contents) and these don't have input either. But it does not matter what this jumble of words means because Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn and it shouldn't. >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. >>> >>> That you persistently ignore this distinction really seems to be a >>> diverge from an honest dialogue. >> >> If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical >> then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an >> exact copy. > > When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to > the store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a > liar. Evasion. Is ⟨Ĥ[i]⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ for all i or not? You need to start answering simple technical questions like this. If "yes", the notation is there only to help your exposition, if "no" your Ĥ is not behaving at it should. (Twins, unlike strings, are not mathematical objects, but if were to model twins mathematically we'd have to used non-equal objects since they can't be substituted one for the other.) >> You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change >> that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of > > Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. > Turing machines are not identical to strings. > Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state > whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. There some words missing there I think. But it's irrelevant waffle. The undisputed fact is that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn but Linz's Ĥ should not behave like this. Everything that happens on the way to qn is irrelevant. > If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of > the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely > ignore those things that you agree with. Likewise. But your task is simpler than mine. We both agree that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. All you have to agree with is that this is not the behaviour specified by Linz: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. On the other hand, I have to put pick waffle about input to something that has no input. Strings never halting or not reaching some state when string are just strings. All of which concerns the details of how your Ĥ is wrong. > Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its > final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating > it? No. I can't parse the sentence. To what does "its" refer? There is only one final state in Ĥ and it's Ĥ's final state! There's a deep problem here. You've never written a UTM (I'm not using "poetic license" here, I mean a UTM) so you don't know how a UTM simulation proceeds. The string is not decoded into a TM with its own states. It can't even use the tape in the usual way because the tape is now used for more than one purpose. Students get this (eventually) because they read the textbook and do the exercises. But the part you keep ignoring is why should anyone care, since Ĥ, and the H it's build from, do not behave as Linz describes? > If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being > disagreeable you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point > until we reach mutual agreement. All other points will not be > discussed until we reach mutual agreement on this point. Nonsense. You've stated and agreed to the fact that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. The details of that wrong journey are just something you want me to get bogged down in. You could simply agree with the plain fact that anyone could write an Ĥ that behaves like yours and none of them would say anything about the proof. You'd be free to go a walk some dogs. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 20:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <gZKdnY-eutttCZH8nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37656 |
On 8/5/2021 5:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/4/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/4/2021 2:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/4/2021 7:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/2/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As long as it is simply dismissed out-of-hand as a contradiction the >>>>>>>>>> paradox remains unresolved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no contradiction or paradox. You Ĥ is just the wrong sort of >>>>>>>>> TM. The proof you want to "refute" is talking about this sort of Ĥ: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx correctly decides that its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe saying it a couple more times will help. After four times I can >>>>>>> tell you that it's still wrong. Maybe about a dozen more? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whether what happens after Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct or not is determined >>>>>>> by Linz, not by you. And you are clear that >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>> >>>>>> As explained in complete detail below: >>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> Yes, please don't tell me the final state yet again. This is not been >>>>> in dispute for some time. >>>>> >>>>>> because M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>> where M is Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) (1st param) above >>>>>> and wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ the second param above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because wM is referring to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is referring to the underlying >>>>>> machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ the last line above is translated to: if >>>>>> Machine_of(⟨Ĥ⟩) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt >>>>> That's convoluted. ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the encoding of Ĥ so to find out what Linz >>>>> expects from Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ we just substitute M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ into >>>>> the above: >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>> >>>> It is not the first Ĥ that is being referred to it is *only* the >>>> machine represented by the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ that is being referred to. >>> The machine represented by ⟨Ĥ⟩ is Ĥ. There is only one Ĥ being >>> discussed here -- yours. >>> >>>> That machine >>>> never reaches its final state. >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn, or so you've told us. Are you changing >>> your story? I'd like an answer. It's not a hard question. >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn > > OK, so you are not changing your story. Linz tells us that > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. The requirement is then that, given any (WM, w), the Turing machine H will halt with either a yes or no answer. http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf The M that is being referred below is the machine specified by WM H.q0 WM W ⊢* H.qn if M applied to wM does not halt The M that is being referred below is the machine specified by wM AKA ⟨Ĥ⟩ Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt When Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider the question becomes: Does the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ reach its final state. > so your Ĥ is not interesting. Such TMs are ten-a-penny and none of them > have anything to say about the proof in Linz. You should apologise for > hooking people in with a lie 30 months ago. You don't have anything > that anyone would consider to be impossible. What is impossible, and > you once false claimed to have, is a TM that behaves as Linz says, if > only for this one case. > >> because the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. > > The reason is not relevant. That's good because the above is nonsense, > iteral nonsense. What is the input "to"? It can't be Ĥ.qx because > that's a state and states don't have input. It can't be Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > because that's a TM configuration (state+tape contents) and these don't > have input either. > > But it does not matter what this jumble of words means because Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ > transitions to Ĥ.qn and it shouldn't. > >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if Ĥ[1] applied to ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ does not halt. >>>> >>>> That you persistently ignore this distinction really seems to be a >>>> diverge from an honest dialogue. >>> >>> If the various strings you've chosen to number (badly) are not identical >>> then your "hat" construction is wrong. Linz's "hat" version makes an >>> exact copy. >> >> When Bill says that his identical twin brother is not going to go to >> the store, and then Bill goes to the store this does not make him a >> liar. > > Evasion. Is ⟨Ĥ[i]⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ for all i or not? You need to start answering > simple technical questions like this. If "yes", the notation is there > only to help your exposition, if "no" your Ĥ is not behaving at it > should. > > (Twins, unlike strings, are not mathematical objects, but if were to > model twins mathematically we'd have to used non-equal objects since > they can't be substituted one for the other.) > >>> You are free to write ⟨Ĥ[99]⟩ if you like, but I am also free to change >>> that back to ⟨Ĥ⟩ because they are identical strings. Anything true of >> >> Ĥ is not a string it is a Turing machine. >> Turing machines are not identical to strings. >> Ĥ halts the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its final state >> whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating it. > > There some words missing there I think. But it's irrelevant waffle. > The undisputed fact is that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn but Linz's Ĥ > should not behave like this. Everything that happens on the way to qn > is irrelevant. > >> If you want an actual honest dialogue we must have closure on some of >> the points. You must say what things you agree with and not merely >> ignore those things that you agree with. > > Likewise. But your task is simpler than mine. We both agree that > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. All you have to agree with is that this is not the > behaviour specified by Linz: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied > to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > On the other hand, I have to put pick waffle about input to something > that has no input. Strings never halting or not reaching some state > when string are just strings. All of which concerns the details of how > your Ĥ is wrong. > >> Do you understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its >> final state whether or not the halt decider at Ĥ.qx stop simulating >> it? > > No. I can't parse the sentence. To what does "its" refer? There is > only one final state in Ĥ and it's Ĥ's final state! > > There's a deep problem here. You've never written a UTM (I'm not using > "poetic license" here, I mean a UTM) so you don't know how a UTM > simulation proceeds. The string is not decoded into a TM with its own > states. It can't even use the tape in the usual way because the tape is > now used for more than one purpose. Students get this (eventually) > because they read the textbook and do the exercises. > > But the part you keep ignoring is why should anyone care, since Ĥ, and > the H it's build from, do not behave as Linz describes? > >> If you disagree then to prove that you are not simply being >> disagreeable you must proceed with a dialogue on this single point >> until we reach mutual agreement. All other points will not be >> discussed until we reach mutual agreement on this point. > > Nonsense. You've stated and agreed to the fact that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. > The details of that wrong journey are just something you want me to get > bogged down in. You could simply agree with the plain fact that anyone > could write an Ĥ that behaves like yours and none of them would say > anything about the proof. You'd be free to go a walk some dogs. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-06 03:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87k0kzz4e0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37669 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > The M that is being referred below is the machine specified by wM AKA ⟨Ĥ⟩ Yes, so M is Ĥ (what you wrote, rather redundantly, as Machine_Of(⟨Ĥ⟩). > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt So Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt Linz even writes this out for you with the correct substitutions. > When Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider the question becomes: > Does the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ reach its final state. Your implementation choices for H (and thus Ĥ) do not change the specification. You Ĥ does not meet it. We can go round and round this loop forever, but you can't show that your Ĥ does what it should to be interesting. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 21:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. |
| Message-ID | <UOydnU_VzOs-P5H8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37671 |
On 8/5/2021 9:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> The M that is being referred below is the machine specified by wM AKA ⟨Ĥ⟩ > > Yes, so M is Ĥ (what you wrote, rather redundantly, as Machine_Of(⟨Ĥ⟩). > >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt > > So > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt > > Linz even writes this out for you with the correct substitutions. > >> When Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider the question becomes: >> Does the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ reach its final state. > > Your implementation choices for H (and thus Ĥ) do not change the > specification. You Ĥ does not meet it. > > We can go round and round this loop forever, but you can't show that > your Ĥ does what it should to be interesting. > That you ignore rather than point out errors in my reasoning really seems to prove that you don't want an honest dialogue. If you really do want an honest dialogue then we must go through the points on page 6 until we have mutual agreement. Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web