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 14 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 27 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 08:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <6_yNI.19810$_fgb.18289@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #37451 |
On 8/1/21 8:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's
>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not
>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not
>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting.
>>>>
>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting"
>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no
>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent
>>> it would have to be some cheap trick.
>>
>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as
>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as
>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook.
>>
>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the
>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do:
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt.
>>
>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at
>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩:
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>>
>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the
>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input.
>>
>
> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine.
>
> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine
> description input to Ĥ[0].q0
>
> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the
> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0
>
> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn
>
> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three
> different instances of Ĥ.
Except that it is, as Turing macines are Computations, and All instance
of a given Computaton (Algorith/Turing Machine + Input) must give the
same results.
You don't seem to understand this Fundamental property.
What would you think of a program that every time you ran it told you a
different answer? (Like how much taxes you owed for a given year).
>
> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx
> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its final
> state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt decider
> aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% perfectly
> justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never halts.
>
>>> However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got
>>> nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe
>>> interesting,
>>> but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn
>>> computer
>>> science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
>>
>> I don't follow. H_Hat(H_Hat) halts because H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 making
>> that result the wrong one. If H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returned non-zero,
>> H_Hat(H_Hat) would not halt, making that the wrong result. Whilst I
>> don't like this sort of language, H fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) precisely
>> because of how H_Hat is constructed from H.
>>
>
> Garbage in derives garbage out that this garbage collector** recognizes
> and rejects:
But H^ is NOT garbage.
Maybe the garbage is in H.
>
> ** Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) decider
>
> // H and H2 are partial halt deciders
> u32 PSR_Decider(u32 P, u32 I)
> {
> u32 Input_Halts1 = H((u32)P, (u32)I);
> u32 Input_Halts2 = H2((u32)Simulate, (u32)P, (u32)I);
> Output("Input_Halts1 = ", Input_Halts1);
> Output("Input_Halts2 = ", Input_Halts2);
> if (Input_Halts1 != Input_Halts2)
> return 1;
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 17:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <87h7g988a6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37451 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> >>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>> >>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" >>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent >>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as >> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at >> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >> > > Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. > > Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine > description input to Ĥ[0].q0 > > Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the > Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 > > Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three > different instances of Ĥ. I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's just a fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of which you are keeping hidden from us). > Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx > correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its > final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt > decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% > perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never > halts. We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right there in the line you keep posting again and again. As far as I know, you have never disputed this fact. As you say, this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It just shows that Ĥ does not behave as Linz says it should, in the one case you have obsessed about for 17 years. Having an H (and thus an Ĥ) that is wrong (i.e. not "exactly and precisely as on Linz" as you once claimed) is trivial. It is not something that anyone (except Malcolm, apparently) would care about. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 10:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <j8OdneamG91aK5f8nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37455 |
On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>> >>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" >>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent >>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as >>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at >>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>> >> >> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. >> >> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine >> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >> >> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >> >> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn > > Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > >> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >> different instances of Ĥ. > > I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's just a > fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of > which you are keeping hidden from us). > >> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx >> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never >> halts. > > We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly > shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt You are using the wrong Ĥ. Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. We can see that M never reaches its final state. Because the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does specify infinitely nested simulation we can know for sure that M never reaches its final state whether or not Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of M. > there in the line you keep posting again and again. As far as I know, > you have never disputed this fact. > > As you say, this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It just > shows that Ĥ does not behave as Linz says it should, in the one case you > have obsessed about for 17 years. Having an H (and thus an Ĥ) that is > wrong (i.e. not "exactly and precisely as on Linz" as you once claimed) > is trivial. It is not something that anyone (except Malcolm, > apparently) would care about. > -- 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 19:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <87im0l2gc0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37604 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >>>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >>>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>>> >>>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" >>>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent >>>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as >>>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >>>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at >>>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>>> >>> >>> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. >>> >>> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine >>> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>> >>> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >>> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>> >>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >> Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >>> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >>> different instances of Ĥ. >> I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's just a >> fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of >> which you are keeping hidden from us). >> >>> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx >>> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >>> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >>> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never >>> halts. >> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly >> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > You are using the wrong Ĥ. First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. > Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this > ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really says. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 17:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <pu-dnVqdPMG4iJb8nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37608 |
On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >>>>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >>>>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" >>>>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>>>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent >>>>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>>>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>>>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as >>>>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>>>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >>>>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>>>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at >>>>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>>>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. >>>> >>>> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine >>>> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>> >>>> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >>>> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>> >>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>> Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> >>>> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >>>> different instances of Ĥ. >>> I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's just a >>> fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of >>> which you are keeping hidden from us). >>> >>>> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx >>>> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >>>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >>>> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >>>> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never >>>> halts. >>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly >>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> if M applied to wM halts, and >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> You are using the wrong Ĥ. > > First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ > does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. > >> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. > > No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? > You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like > to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really > says. > ...Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem is: given the description of a Turing machine M given the description of a Turing machine M given the description of a Turing machine M given the description of a Turing machine M given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M never reaches a 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 | 2021-08-05 00:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <87v94k23rn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37616 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>>>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >>>>>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >>>>>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" >>>>>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>>>>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent >>>>>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>>>>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>>>>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as >>>>>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>>>>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >>>>>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>>>>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at >>>>>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>>>>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine >>>>> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >>>>> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>>> Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>>> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >>>>> different instances of Ĥ. >>>> I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's just a >>>> fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of >>>> which you are keeping hidden from us). >>>> >>>>> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx >>>>> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >>>>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >>>>> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >>>>> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never >>>>> halts. >>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly >>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >> >>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like >> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >> says. >> > > ...Turing machine halting problem. > Simply stated, the problem is: > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > > and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? > > http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt > > When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M > never reaches a final state. This a schoolboy error. Why are you so scared to ask me questions? Do you fear you might understand me? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 22:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <Y5-dnbXu3ONoxpb8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37619 |
On 8/4/2021 6:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>>>>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >>>>>>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >>>>>>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" >>>>>>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>>>>>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent >>>>>>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>>>>>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>>>>>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as >>>>>>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>>>>>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >>>>>>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>>>>>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at >>>>>>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>>>>>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine >>>>>> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >>>>>> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>>>> Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>>> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >>>>>> different instances of Ĥ. >>>>> I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's just a >>>>> fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of >>>>> which you are keeping hidden from us). >>>>> >>>>>> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx >>>>>> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >>>>>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >>>>>> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >>>>>> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never >>>>>> halts. >>>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly >>>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >>> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >>> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >>> >>>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >>> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like >>> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >>> says. >>> >> >> ...Turing machine halting problem. >> Simply stated, the problem is: >> given the description of a Turing machine M >> given the description of a Turing machine M >> given the description of a Turing machine M >> given the description of a Turing machine M >> given the description of a Turing machine M >> >> and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? >> >> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt >> >> When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M >> never reaches a final state. > > This a schoolboy error. Why are you so scared to ask me questions? Do > you fear you might understand me? > Speaking to me with denigration debases only yourself. The halting problem is not about deciding whether or not a Turing Machine halts, it is only about whether or not the description of a Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn -- 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 22:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <AjJOI.687$qf5.450@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #37629 |
On 8/4/21 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/4/2021 6:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ's >>>>>>>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But >>>>>>>>>> it's not >>>>>>>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It >>>>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns >>>>>>>>> "non-halting" >>>>>>>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be >>>>>>>>> and no >>>>>>>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were >>>>>>>>> consistent >>>>>>>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>>>>>>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>>>>>>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the >>>>>>>> truth as >>>>>>>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>>>>>>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps >>>>>>>> posting the >>>>>>>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>>>>>>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification >>>>>>>> for at >>>>>>>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>>>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>>>>>>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing >>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing >>>>>>> machine >>>>>>> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >>>>>>> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>>>>> Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >>>>>>> different instances of Ĥ. >>>>>> I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's >>>>>> just a >>>>>> fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of >>>>>> which you are keeping hidden from us). >>>>>> >>>>>>> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that >>>>>>> Ĥ[0].qx >>>>>>> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >>>>>>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >>>>>>> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >>>>>>> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx >>>>>>> never >>>>>>> halts. >>>>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This >>>>>> clearly >>>>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >>>> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >>>> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >>>> >>>>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>>> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >>>> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like >>>> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >>>> says. >>>> >>> >>> ...Turing machine halting problem. >>> Simply stated, the problem is: >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> >>> and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration >>> q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? >>> >>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt >>> >>> When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M >>> never reaches a final state. >> >> This a schoolboy error. Why are you so scared to ask me questions? Do >> you fear you might understand me? >> > > Speaking to me with denigration debases only yourself. > > The halting problem is not about deciding whether or not a Turing > Machine halts, it is only about whether or not the description of a > Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > And a description only specifies a computation via the Turing Machine it represents. You seem to have uncoupled the concept of Turing Machine from this. Computations are computed with Turing Machines which have a representation. The representation does NOT specify directly a Computation, only a Turing Machine. Please note, a given Computation actually can be computed by a very large number (infinite) of Turing Machines, and each Turing Machine can be represented by a large number (infinite) of Representations, and how you can build those representations is a function of the interpreter of them. A given representation string only has meaning as it relates to some interpreter (the UTM or decider that will process it) and might not actually mean anything to some other machine. The description can ONLY get back to the Computation via the Turing Machine it represents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 23:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <875ywj1qyk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37629 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/4/2021 6:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly >>>>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >>>> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >>>> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >>>> >>>>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>>> >>>> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >>>> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like >>>> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >>>> says. >>>> >>> >>> ...Turing machine halting problem. >>> Simply stated, the problem is: >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>> >>> and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? >>> >>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt >>> >>> When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M >>> never reaches a final state. >> >> This a schoolboy error. Why are you so scared to ask me questions? Do >> you fear you might understand me? > > Speaking to me with denigration debases only yourself. "You can't hold a coherent thought for even a fraction of a second" "There is no halt decider mentioned here numbskull" "If you weren't dumber than a box of rocks..." "The halting problem is theory of computation material, nitwit" and so on and so on. I could find dozens more from you. > The halting problem is not about deciding whether or not a Turing > Machine halts, it is only about whether or not the description of a > Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state. No. Mind you, the error here is just in the writing rather than the logic. If you could say what you mean, it might be correct. You are right that the halting problem is not about deciding whether or not a Turing machine halts because it's about computations and not Turing machines. But its not about whether or not the description of a Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state because the description of a Turing machine does not specify a computation at all. Anyway, you've not addressed the schoolboy error. If (when ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩) Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn then M (AKA Ĥ) reaches its final state. It's just daft to say that you can prove that Ĥ transitions to its final state (Ĥ.qn) because it (Ĥ) never reaches a final state! > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Next time, remember to add the text from Linz that shows you are wrong: "if Ĥ applied to ŵ halts" for the first and "if Ĥ applied to ŵ does not halt" for the second. (ŵ is what Linz calls Ĥ.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 20:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <IoydnYCO1pJUEJH8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37654 |
On 8/5/2021 5:12 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/4/2021 6:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This clearly >>>>>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>> >>>>>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >>>>> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >>>>> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >>>>> >>>>>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>>>> >>>>> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >>>>> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like >>>>> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >>>>> says. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ...Turing machine halting problem. >>>> Simply stated, the problem is: >>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>> >>>> and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? >>>> >>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt >>>> >>>> When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M >>>> never reaches a final state. >>> >>> This a schoolboy error. Why are you so scared to ask me questions? Do >>> you fear you might understand me? >> >> Speaking to me with denigration debases only yourself. > > "You can't hold a coherent thought for even a fraction of a second" > "There is no halt decider mentioned here numbskull" > "If you weren't dumber than a box of rocks..." > "The halting problem is theory of computation material, nitwit" > > and so on and so on. I could find dozens more from you. > >> The halting problem is not about deciding whether or not a Turing >> Machine halts, it is only about whether or not the description of a >> Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state. > > No. Mind you, the error here is just in the writing rather than the > logic. If you could say what you mean, it might be correct. > > You are right that the halting problem is not about deciding whether or > not a Turing machine halts because it's about computations and not > Turing machines. But its not about whether or not the description of a > Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state > because the description of a Turing machine does not specify a > computation at all. > the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? U sing an abbreviated way of talking about the problem, we ask whether M applied to w, or simply (M, w), halts or does not halt. http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt M refers to the Turing machine of the inputs not the Turing machine that is being executed. if Machine_Of(wM) applied to wM does not halt So when Bill says that his identical twin brother is never going to the store and then Bill goes to the store THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. If you don't want an honest dialogue then please say so. > Anyway, you've not addressed the schoolboy error. If (when ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩) > Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn then M (AKA Ĥ) reaches its final state. It's > just daft to say that you can prove that Ĥ transitions to its final > state (Ĥ.qn) because it (Ĥ) never reaches a final state! > >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > Next time, remember to add the text from Linz that shows you are wrong: > "if Ĥ applied to ŵ halts" for the first and "if Ĥ applied to ŵ does not > halt" for the second. (ŵ is what Linz calls Ĥ.) > -- 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 20:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <wg0PI.3615$Bg6.3020@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #37662 |
On 8/5/21 8:17 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/5/2021 5:12 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/4/2021 6:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>>>>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This >>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state >>>>>>>> right >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >>>>>> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >>>>>> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >>>>>> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd >>>>>> like >>>>>> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >>>>>> says. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...Turing machine halting problem. >>>>> Simply stated, the problem is: >>>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>>> given the description of a Turing machine M >>>>> >>>>> and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration >>>>> q0w, perform a computation that eventually halts? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt >>>>> >>>>> When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M >>>>> never reaches a final state. >>>> >>>> This a schoolboy error. Why are you so scared to ask me questions? Do >>>> you fear you might understand me? >>> >>> Speaking to me with denigration debases only yourself. >> >> "You can't hold a coherent thought for even a fraction of a second" >> "There is no halt decider mentioned here numbskull" >> "If you weren't dumber than a box of rocks..." >> "The halting problem is theory of computation material, nitwit" >> >> and so on and so on. I could find dozens more from you. >> >>> The halting problem is not about deciding whether or not a Turing >>> Machine halts, it is only about whether or not the description of a >>> Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state. >> >> No. Mind you, the error here is just in the writing rather than the >> logic. If you could say what you mean, it might be correct. >> >> You are right that the halting problem is not about deciding whether or >> not a Turing machine halts because it's about computations and not >> Turing machines. But its not about whether or not the description of a >> Turing machine specifies a computation that reaches its final state >> because the description of a Turing machine does not specify a >> computation at all. >> > > the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem is: given > the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, does M, when > started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation that > eventually halts? U sing an abbreviated way of talking about the > problem, we ask whether M applied to w, or simply (M, w), halts or does > not halt. http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > M refers to the Turing machine of the inputs not the Turing machine that > is being executed. > NO. M referes to the Turing machine DESCRIBED by the inputs. The input is NOT a Turing Machine, but a description, read what you wrote as a definition and actually USE it. The notation used does NOT distinctly indicate 'descriptions', which might make thing cleared, but assumes you are smart enough to realize that to have a 'machine' as in input implies that you actually give it a description. Not only that, but w is ALSO a description, as it is quite possible that the machie H uses a different alphabet for its tape then the machine M, so you need to 'encode' what M would get into the 'character set' that H understands. > if Machine_Of(wM) applied to wM does not halt > > So when Bill says that his identical twin brother is never going to the > store and then Bill goes to the store THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. And doesn't apply to Turing Machines. > > When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. So H^(<H^>) is a Halting computation for ALL copies of H^, include the representation given to H, so H is wrong. > > If you don't want an honest dialogue then please say so. You Too. > >> Anyway, you've not addressed the schoolboy error. If (when ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩) >> Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn then M (AKA Ĥ) reaches its final state. It's >> just daft to say that you can prove that Ĥ transitions to its final >> state (Ĥ.qn) because it (Ĥ) never reaches a final state! >> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> Next time, remember to add the text from Linz that shows you are wrong: >> "if Ĥ applied to ŵ halts" for the first and "if Ĥ applied to ŵ does not >> halt" for the second. (ŵ is what Linz calls Ĥ.) >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <87h7g3z4db.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37662 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem is: > given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, does M, > when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation > that eventually halts? Using an abbreviated way of talking about the > problem, we ask whether M applied to w, or simply (M, w), halts or > does not halt. > http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > M refers to the Turing machine of the inputs not the Turing machine > that is being executed. M refers to the TM encoded as wM. The case in point -- the one you claimed to have something important to say about -- has wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ and (consequently) M = Ĥ. The key case is exactly the one where M refers to the TM being executed because the input, wM, is ⟨Ĥ⟩. Linz writes it out for you (though I'll switch to your notation): Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. For obvious reasons (if not, ask), you do not have such an Ĥ. > if Machine_Of(wM) applied to wM does not halt Yes, Machine_Of(wM) is M. This is saying what Linz is saying though it a more wordy way. > So when Bill says that his identical twin brother is never going to > the store and then Bill goes to the store THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. There is no contradiction. I've said this many times now. There is no contradiction (or paradox) with your Ĥ. Mind you, I don't see what your analogy is trying to tell me so I suspect you are wrong about something here. What are the two things that look identical but do different things here? Bill and his brother are... what... Ĥ and Ĥ or ⟨Ĥ⟩ and ⟨Ĥ⟩? > When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. <Sigh> How often do I have to say something for you take note of it? There is no contradiction or paradox with your Ĥ. Your Ĥ is simply not doing what Linz says it should be doing to be interesting. It's doing the first part of the spec: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn but it's not meeting the second part because, obviously, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. If, 30 months ago, you'd said "I have two TMs H and Ĥ (as per Linz's construction) with this behaviour: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" no one would have cared. I don't know if you genuinely thought you had something interesting, but it 100% clear now that you never did. The false claim you made was that your H/Ĥ pair were not just constructed as in Linz, but met Linz's specifications, at least for the one key case. > If you don't want an honest dialogue then please say so. I can't imagine what you think I am being less than honest about. You, on the other hand have said things like: "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." Now you may have been deluded or just mistaken when you said this, but you must see, now, that you don't have anything meeting Linz's specification. It's dishonest to keep saying (or implying) that you do. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-05 21:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <IvKdnUpgiu__PpH8nZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37672 |
On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem is: >> given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, does M, >> when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation >> that eventually halts? Using an abbreviated way of talking about the >> problem, we ask whether M applied to w, or simply (M, w), halts or >> does not halt. >> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> if M applied to wM halts, and >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> M refers to the Turing machine of the inputs not the Turing machine >> that is being executed. > > M refers to the TM encoded as wM. The case in point -- the one you > claimed to have something important to say about -- has wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ and > (consequently) M = Ĥ. > Yes the placement of this encoding of Ĥ in the specified machine templates is crucial in that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. > The key case is exactly the one where M refers to the TM being executed > because the input, wM, is ⟨Ĥ⟩. Linz writes it out for you (though I'll > switch to your notation): > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > For obvious reasons (if not, ask), you do not have such an Ĥ. > >> if Machine_Of(wM) applied to wM does not halt > > Yes, Machine_Of(wM) is M. This is saying what Linz is saying though it > a more wordy way. > >> So when Bill says that his identical twin brother is never going to >> the store and then Bill goes to the store THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. > > There is no contradiction. I've said this many times now. There is no > contradiction (or paradox) with your Ĥ. > > Mind you, I don't see what your analogy is trying to tell me so I > suspect you are wrong about something here. What are the two things > that look identical but do different things here? Bill and his brother > are... what... Ĥ and Ĥ or ⟨Ĥ⟩ and ⟨Ĥ⟩? > >> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION. > > <Sigh> How often do I have to say something for you take note of it? > There is no contradiction or paradox with your Ĥ. Your Ĥ is simply not > doing what Linz says it should be doing to be interesting. It's doing > the first part of the spec: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn but it's not meeting the > second part because, obviously, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. > > If, 30 months ago, you'd said "I have two TMs H and Ĥ (as per Linz's > construction) with this behaviour: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" no > one would have cared. I don't know if you genuinely thought you had > something interesting, but it 100% clear now that you never did. > > The false claim you made was that your H/Ĥ pair were not just > constructed as in Linz, but met Linz's specifications, at least for the > one key case. > >> If you don't want an honest dialogue then please say so. > > I can't imagine what you think I am being less than honest about. You, > on the other hand have said things like: > > "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz > specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing > Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." > > Now you may have been deluded or just mistaken when you said this, but > you must see, now, that you don't have anything meeting Linz's > specification. It's dishonest to keep saying (or implying) that you do. > -- 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 | 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <87wnowlqpe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37675 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem is: >>> given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, does M, >>> when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a computation >>> that eventually halts? Using an abbreviated way of talking about the >>> problem, we ask whether M applied to w, or simply (M, w), halts or >>> does not halt. >>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> M refers to the Turing machine of the inputs not the Turing machine >>> that is being executed. >> M refers to the TM encoded as wM. The case in point -- the one you >> claimed to have something important to say about -- has wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ and >> (consequently) M = Ĥ. > > Yes the placement of this encoding of Ĥ in the specified machine > templates is crucial in that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms > no contradiction. There's no contradiction (for the umpteenth time). It just shows that you've chosen to write H (and hence Ĥ) in such a way that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when Linz says it shouldn't. No one cares about such TMs. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-04 19:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <jXFOI.207$CgPc.55@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #37616 |
On 8/4/21 4:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/4/2021 1:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/1/2021 11:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >>>>>>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It >>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns >>>>>>> "non-halting" >>>>>>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no >>>>>>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were >>>>>>> consistent >>>>>>> it would have to be some cheap trick. >>>>>> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as >>>>>> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the >>>>>> truth as >>>>>> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. >>>>>> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the >>>>>> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. >>>>>> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification >>>>>> for at >>>>>> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>>>>> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the >>>>>> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine >>>>> description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the >>>>> Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0 >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn >>>> Ĥ[0] is Ĥ so you are confirming, yet again, that >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>>> It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three >>>>> different instances of Ĥ. >>>> I agree that this is neither a paradox nor a contradiction. It's >>>> just a >>>> fact derived form the logic of how your Ĥ is written (the majority of >>>> which you are keeping hidden from us). >>>> >>>>> Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx >>>>> correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its >>>>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt >>>>> decider aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% >>>>> perfectly justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never >>>>> halts. >>>> We know, since you keep telling us, that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn. This >>>> clearly >>>> shows that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can see the final state right >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> You are using the wrong Ĥ. >> >> First of all, let's be 100% clear: I am talking about what /your/ Ĥ >> does, based in the facts you have let slip about it. >> >>> Linz stipulates that wM is ⟨Ĥ⟩ and M is the underlying machine of this >>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ therefore M applied to wM means ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >> >> No. How many years have you been staring at this one page from Linz? >> You still don't know what it says. Do ask me questions, if you'd like >> to know what the text you've been sure is wrong for 17 years really >> says. >> > > ...Turing machine halting problem. > Simply stated, the problem is: > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > given the description of a Turing machine M > > and an input w, does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, > perform a computation that eventually halts? > > http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to ⟨M⟩ does not halt > > When ⟨M⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩: I have proved that Ĥ ⟨M⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn because M > never reaches a final state. > > Except that H^.qn is the state that H^ HALTS in because its copy of H said it was non-halting. H^ is NOT a decider, it qn state does NOT say that its input is non-halting, it says that IT is Halting becuase its copy of H says (in this case incorrectly) that it thinks the input is non-halting. Arriving at H^.qn with the input = (H^) is the PROOF that H((H^),(H^)) is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 09:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <XoKdnQJb0dztLpv8nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37446 |
On 8/1/2021 7:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's
>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not
>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not
>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting.
>>
> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting"
> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no
> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent
> it would have to be some cheap trick.
Since both answers are correct:
(a) The input to H(P,P) really is a non-halting computation:
It can't possibly ever reach its final state whether or not H aborts its
simulation.
(b) The P of int main(){ P(); } does reach its final state.
Therefore (b) does not prove that H(P,P)==0 is incorrect.
These are two different instances of P at two different points in the
execution trace and the first P would never halt unless the second P was
aborted thus proving that int main(){ P(); } does specify the first
element of an infinite chain of function calls. P was only allowed to
halt only because it was not an input to the halt decider. This is like
a guy that gets away with a crime only because no one is watching.
// H and H2 are partial halt deciders
u32 PSR_Decider(u32 P, u32 I)
{
u32 Input_Halts1 = H((u32)P, (u32)I);
u32 Input_Halts2 = H2((u32)Simulate, (u32)P, (u32)I);
Output("Input_Halts1 = ", Input_Halts1);
Output("Input_Halts2 = ", Input_Halts2);
if (Input_Halts1 != Input_Halts2)
return 1;
return 0;
}
Since u32 PSR_Decider(u32 P, u32 I) recognizes all and only these cases
Rice is refuted.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got
> nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe interesting,
> but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn computer
> science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
>
--
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 | 2021-08-01 08:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <31zNI.28292$7H7.28218@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #37450 |
On 8/1/21 7:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 7:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's
>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not
>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not
>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting.
>>>
>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting"
>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no
>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent
>> it would have to be some cheap trick.
>
> Since both answers are correct:
>
> (a) The input to H(P,P) really is a non-halting computation:
> It can't possibly ever reach its final state whether or not H aborts its
> simulation.
>
Wrong, as previously shown.
> (b) The P of int main(){ P(); } does reach its final state.
Right, which is WHY (a) is wrong.
>
> Therefore (b) does not prove that H(P,P)==0 is incorrect.
WHY?
The DEFINITION of a Halting Decider is a machine that tells you what the
machine its input represents would do with the given input.
The MEANING of H(P,I) is asking what will P(I) do?
>
> These are two different instances of P at two different points in the
> execution trace and the first P would never halt unless the second P was
> aborted thus proving that int main(){ P(); } does specify the first
> element of an infinite chain of function calls. P was only allowed to
> halt only because it was not an input to the halt decider. This is like
> a guy that gets away with a crime only because no one is watching.
Doesn't matter that a second P was aborted. The Actual Machine P(P) does
Halt, so anything that aborts a simulation of P(P) and says it is
non-halting is incorrect.
>
> // H and H2 are partial halt deciders
> u32 PSR_Decider(u32 P, u32 I)
> {
> u32 Input_Halts1 = H((u32)P, (u32)I);
> u32 Input_Halts2 = H2((u32)Simulate, (u32)P, (u32)I);
> Output("Input_Halts1 = ", Input_Halts1);
> Output("Input_Halts2 = ", Input_Halts2);
> if (Input_Halts1 != Input_Halts2)
> return 1;
> return 0;
> }
>
> Since u32 PSR_Decider(u32 P, u32 I) recognizes all and only these cases
> Rice is refuted.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
>> However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got
>> nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe
>> interesting,
>> but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn
>> computer
>> science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 22:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <woudnXWBxPba95r8nZ2dnUU78ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37443 |
On 8/1/2021 5:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/31/2021 5:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/30/2021 2:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Any chance you will now say if >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >>>>>>> please ask for some help in understanding it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> An answer. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the clause >>>>> that applies to your H and Ĥ: >>>> >>>> There is no H in the relevant last paragraph of the Linz proof that >>>> forms the basis for the Linz conclusion. >>> Distraction. Everything you ignore below is about the proof and refers >>> only to Ĥ. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me >>>>> that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state transition >>>>> sequence means: >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> Which is it? >>>> >>>> Ĥ0.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then Ĥ0.qx simulates Ĥ1 with the >>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ copy then >>>> Ĥ1.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then Ĥ1.qx simulates Ĥ2 with the >>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ copy then >>>> Ĥ2.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then Ĥ2.qx simulates Ĥ3 with the >>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ copy then ... >>> This is an abuse of the notation (but I know what you mean). There is >>> no Ĥ1 or Ĥ2. If you think it helps to show which copy of ⟨Ĥ⟩ your >>> simulating "decider" is either running and/or currently looking at, you >>> need to come up with a notation that does that. >> >> A better notation is what I have in my PDF actual subscripts but >> people here tel me that their newsreader makes sure to totally ignore >> posts with HTML so that do even see the post at all. > > 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. The Linz ⊢* explicitly allows for this without diverging from the Linz template at all. Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* >>> At least I know what >>> this "math poem" means, because you've been saying this "it's a >>> simulator until" stuff for years. >>> >>>> The outermost Ĥ0.qx correctly decides that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) >>>> can't possibly ever reach its final state. Then it transitions to >>>> Ĥ0.qn causing the outermost Ĥ0 to halt. >>> Apart from the bad notation, yes. All those copies and tests and >>> eventual deciding are neatly summed up in the last ⊢* Ĥ.qn of >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> >>>> Because the outermost Ĥ0.qx did not decide that Ĥ0 would never halt >>>> and it is self evident that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly >>>> ever reach its final state there is no contradiction or paradox and it >>>> decided correctly. >>> You are free to define "decide correctly" in any way you like provided >>> you are honest about it. But you hooked people in by saying that your Ĥ >>> is "exactly and precisely as in Linz", and you quoted, even now, what >>> Linz has to say about such TMs: >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> This is your quote. You brought it up. You claimed your Ĥ was as Linz >>> states -- that Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if and only if M applied to wM does not >>> halt. Linz makes no exceptions based on why the transitions from Ĥ.q0 >>> wM to Ĥ.qn occur. Linz does not say >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt or if M applied wM only halts >>> because... >>> Are you now saying that your TM was not "as in Linz"? (You should, >>> because you've admitted that elsewhere.) >> >> Ĥ[0] is to be interpreted to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub> >> [0] Means the actual Turing machine and not a TM description. >> [1] Means the first TM description parameter >> [2] Means a copy of the the first TM description parameter >> >> Now I am saying that when the actual unmodified Linz Ĥ is understood >> to have a UTM/Halt-Decider at Ĥ[0].qx that this Ĥ[0].qx does correctly >> decide that its input: (⟨Ĥ[1]⟩, ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩) can't possibly ever reach its >> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[2].qn, therefore we know that its input >> never halts therefore we know that a state transition from Ĥ[0].qx to >> Ĥ0.qn is necessarily correct. > > 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 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) ? > Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's > behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not > "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not > do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. > > Presumably, you will simply explain, yet again, why you choose to call > it correct. You might even, yet again, quote the symbols from Linz that > don't apply to your Ĥ in order to make you posts seem relevant. > -- 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 | 2021-08-01 22:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <69LNI.98022$VU3.50110@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #37485 |
On 8/1/21 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/1/2021 5:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/31/2021 5:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/30/2021 2:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any chance you will now say if >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >>>>>>>> please ask for some help in understanding it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>> An answer. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>> For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the >>>>>> clause >>>>>> that applies to your H and Ĥ: >>>>> >>>>> There is no H in the relevant last paragraph of the Linz proof that >>>>> forms the basis for the Linz conclusion. >>>> Distraction. Everything you ignore below is about the proof and refers >>>> only to Ĥ. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>> >>>>>> so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me >>>>>> that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state >>>>>> transition >>>>>> sequence means: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is it? >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ0.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then Ĥ0.qx simulates Ĥ1 with the >>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ copy then >>>>> Ĥ1.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then Ĥ1.qx simulates Ĥ2 with the >>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ copy then >>>>> Ĥ2.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then Ĥ2.qx simulates Ĥ3 with the >>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ copy then ... >>>> This is an abuse of the notation (but I know what you mean). There is >>>> no Ĥ1 or Ĥ2. If you think it helps to show which copy of ⟨Ĥ⟩ your >>>> simulating "decider" is either running and/or currently looking at, you >>>> need to come up with a notation that does that. >>> >>> A better notation is what I have in my PDF actual subscripts but >>> people here tel me that their newsreader makes sure to totally ignore >>> posts with HTML so that do even see the post at all. >> >> 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. The Linz ⊢* explicitly allows for this without diverging from > the Linz template at all. > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* > > >>>> At least I know what >>>> this "math poem" means, because you've been saying this "it's a >>>> simulator until" stuff for years. >>>> >>>>> The outermost Ĥ0.qx correctly decides that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) >>>>> can't possibly ever reach its final state. Then it transitions to >>>>> Ĥ0.qn causing the outermost Ĥ0 to halt. >>>> Apart from the bad notation, yes. All those copies and tests and >>>> eventual deciding are neatly summed up in the last ⊢* Ĥ.qn of >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>>> Because the outermost Ĥ0.qx did not decide that Ĥ0 would never halt >>>>> and it is self evident that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly >>>>> ever reach its final state there is no contradiction or paradox and it >>>>> decided correctly. >>>> You are free to define "decide correctly" in any way you like provided >>>> you are honest about it. But you hooked people in by saying that >>>> your Ĥ >>>> is "exactly and precisely as in Linz", and you quoted, even now, what >>>> Linz has to say about such TMs: >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> This is your quote. You brought it up. You claimed your Ĥ was as Linz >>>> states -- that Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if and only if M applied to wM does not >>>> halt. Linz makes no exceptions based on why the transitions from Ĥ.q0 >>>> wM to Ĥ.qn occur. Linz does not say >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt or if M applied wM only halts >>>> because... >>>> Are you now saying that your TM was not "as in Linz"? (You should, >>>> because you've admitted that elsewhere.) >>> >>> Ĥ[0] is to be interpreted to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub> >>> [0] Means the actual Turing machine and not a TM description. >>> [1] Means the first TM description parameter >>> [2] Means a copy of the the first TM description parameter >>> >>> Now I am saying that when the actual unmodified Linz Ĥ is understood >>> to have a UTM/Halt-Decider at Ĥ[0].qx that this Ĥ[0].qx does correctly >>> decide that its input: (⟨Ĥ[1]⟩, ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩) can't possibly ever reach its >>> final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[2].qn, therefore we know that its input >>> never halts therefore we know that a state transition from Ĥ[0].qx to >>> Ĥ0.qn is necessarily correct. >> >> 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 way that you do it when your twin bother commits a crime that makes > you guilty. But if you do exactly the same thing that your 'twim brother' does, like Turing Machines do, if your 'twin brother' commits a crime, you did exactly the same thing. This may not be applicable for volitional people, but if one copy of Turing Machine P is given input I and Halts or doesn't, another copy of that exact same WILL do exactly the same thing. > > 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. But they WILL if allowed to execute, this is PROVEN because H^0(H^0) does halt. If you want to claim that H^1 behaves differently then H^0, then you did something wrong. Either H^1 isn't the representation of H^0, or somehow H^0 isn't a actual Turing Machine (only possible because we are working under supposed equivalence, you can't have a ACTUAL Turing Machine that isn't one). But the ^ construction formula, H^ WILL be a Turing Machine as long as H is, so if H^ isn't a Turing Machine, that requires that H is a Turing Machine (or you have done the construction wrong). If H isn't a Turing Machine then you failed at the intial requirements. Maybe you don't understand that fundamental property of Turing Machines, that ALL copies of a given machine will give the exact same reponse for the exact same input. > > (b) Because neither ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ nor ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ could ever possibly reach > their final states we know that they never halt. But the WILL if run on an ACTUAL Pure Simulator. The fact the H doesn't simulate them to their end just means that H aborted the too soon and made a wrong decision. YOU have actual PROVEN that they WILL halt if allowed to run enough steps. > > (c) Because they never halt we know that Ĥ[0].qx correctly decided > that its input never halts. ERROR, SEE ABOVE. DISPROVEN. > > 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. > UNSOUND. ILLOGICAL. DISPROVEN. > 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. The Errors in your chain have been pointed out. Please try to point out the error in this rebuttal. > > What is the error in (a)(b)(c) ? See Above. H^1 MUST do what H^0 did, and thus is MUST Halt since H^) did. > >> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >> >> Presumably, you will simply explain, yet again, why you choose to call >> it correct. You might even, yet again, quote the symbols from Linz that >> don't apply to your Ĥ in order to make you posts seem relevant. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 20:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtpz64sq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37485 |
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.
> 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.
(3) Stop talking about what "could possibly" happen. TMs do what they
do. There are no "possibilities".
(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?
(5) Ĥ[0].qx is a state. It does not decide anything. (Again, I can
guess what you mean but you asked for help.)
(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".
(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.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web