On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or >>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells whether >>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of its input would halt.
If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort decider >>>>>>>>> then
you can't understand anything else that requires the prerequisite >>>>>>>>> knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the Olcott
abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You can't learn >>>>>>> simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating abort
deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort
deciders so that it solves the halting problem instead of merely
solving the Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an incorrect
question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting this)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or >>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells whether >>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of its input would halt.
If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort decider >>>>>>>>> then
you can't understand anything else that requires the prerequisite >>>>>>>>> knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the Olcott
abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You can't learn >>>>>>> simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating abort
deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort
deciders so that it solves the halting problem instead of merely
solving the Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an incorrect
question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting this)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
On 3/19/2024 12:46 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 17:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells whether >>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of its input would halt.
If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort
decider then
you can't understand anything else that requires the
prerequisite
knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the Olcott >>>>>>>>>> abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You can't >>>>>>>>> learn
simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating abort >>>>>>>>> deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort
deciders so that it solves the halting problem instead of merely >>>>>>>> solving the Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an
incorrect question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting this) >>>
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ
⟨Ĥ⟩)
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
He asked for an actual H and Ĥ not a copy-pasta.
Those are brand new words that address the glitch that Richard
found in the words he was responding to.
*There is no corresponding Ĥ.H that gets the correct answer on the*
*same input by providing the opposite answer to this same input*
*Every machine the gets the correct answer is outside of the above set*
On 3/19/2024 12:46 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 17:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells whether the direct
execution of its input would halt.
If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort decider then >>>>>>>>>>> you can't understand anything else that requires the prerequisite >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the Olcott abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You can't learn >>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating abort deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort deciders >>>>>>>> so that it solves the halting problem instead of merely solving the >>>>>>>> Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an incorrect >>>>>>> question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting this) >>>
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
He asked for an actual H and Ĥ not a copy-pasta.
Those are brand new words that address the glitch that Richard
found in the words he was responding to.
*There is no corresponding Ĥ.H that gets the correct answer on the*
*same input by providing the opposite answer to this same input*
*Every machine the gets the correct answer is outside of the above set*
On 3/19/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/19/24 9:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells whether >>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of its input would halt.
If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort
decider then
you can't understand anything else that requires the
prerequisite
knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the Olcott >>>>>>>>>> abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You can't >>>>>>>>> learn
simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating abort >>>>>>>>> deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort
deciders so that it solves the halting problem instead of merely >>>>>>>> solving the Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an
incorrect question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting this) >>>
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ
⟨Ĥ⟩)
Right, but only because you restrict yourself to looking at the H^
based on you, and the two lines are different Hs looking at different
H^s.
So, not a contradiction.
when we clarify the differences we get:
H1.Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ1⟩)
H2.Ĥ2 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ2 ⟨Ĥ2⟩)
since Halts(Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ1⟩) != Halts(Ĥ2 ⟨Ĥ2⟩) this isn't a problem.
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Nope,
No was the right answer for H1, and YES was the right answer for H2
There is no H in the above template that provides an answer
consistent with Halts(D,D) no matter what answer this H provides.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
In other words, you need to use broken logic to try to assert your lie.
Yes, All the H1s needed to abort but didn't
All the H2s needs to continue to sumulate but didn't
So, all did the wrong thing.
There is no H in the above template that provides an answer
consistent with Halts(D,D) no matter what answer this H provides.
Because every H in the above template has whatever answer that it
does provide contradicted. When you move outside of the set where
every answer is contradicted this becomes the strawman deception.
Since you keep doing that it seems to not be an honest mistake.
I will keep giving you the benefit of the ever reducing doubt.
On 3/19/2024 12:46 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 17:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells whether >>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of its input would halt.
If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort
decider then
you can't understand anything else that requires the
prerequisite
knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the Olcott >>>>>>>>>> abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You can't >>>>>>>>> learn
simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating abort >>>>>>>>> deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort
deciders so that it solves the halting problem instead of merely >>>>>>>> solving the Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an
incorrect question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting this) >>>
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ
⟨Ĥ⟩)
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
He asked for an actual H and Ĥ not a copy-pasta.
Those are brand new words that address the glitch that Richard
found in the words he was responding to.
*There is no corresponding Ĥ.H that gets the correct answer on the*
*same input by providing the opposite answer to this same input*
*Every machine the gets the correct answer is outside of the above set*
On 3/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-19 18:03:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 3/19/2024 12:46 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 17:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/18/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 8:45 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:43, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 6:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 19/03/24 00:13, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 11:18 AM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 06:25, olcott wrote:If you can't even understand that H is a correct abort >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider then
On 3/17/2024 11:50 PM, immibis wrote:
On 18/03/24 05:42, olcott wrote:
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to abort?
Do you understand that D(D) halts?
*We are talking about the abort criteria*
Strawman deception. H is a halt decider if it tells >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the direct execution of its input would halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
you can't understand anything else that requires the >>>>>>>>>>>>> prerequisite
knowledge that H is a correct abort decider.
Strawman deception. It is the halting problem, not the >>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott abort problem.
You can learn calculus without the basis of algebra. You >>>>>>>>>>> can't learn
simulating halt deciders without the basis of simulating >>>>>>>>>>> abort deciders.
When are you going to extend this theory of simulating abort >>>>>>>>>> deciders so that it solves the halting problem instead of
merely solving the Olcott abort problem?
*Here are the two key steps to that*
(1) Abort deciders correctly decide to abort.
(2) The halting problem requires the correct answer to an
incorrect question thus must be redefined.
But (2) is a LIE.
There is nothing "Incorrect" about the Halting Question.
Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
So, SHOW ME and ACTUAL H and H^ such that H (H^) (H^) says yess
incorrectly while H1 (H^) (H^) says yes correctly?
*You found a bug in my words* (I will start consistently reporting
this)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says YES this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says NO this does not correspond to Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
No matter what any H.Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ says it does not correspond to >>>>> Halts(Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
So we are back to both YES and NO are the wrong answer for every
element in this template:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
All of the elements that reported NO had to abort their simulation
or they could not have reported NO thus have no corresponding YES
element that reports at all.
All of the elements that took the YES path failed to report because
they either did not abort their simulation or got stuck in the
infinite
loop thus have no corresponding NO element.
He asked for an actual H and Ĥ not a copy-pasta.
Those are brand new words that address the glitch that Richard
found in the words he was responding to.
*There is no corresponding Ĥ.H that gets the correct answer on the*
*same input by providing the opposite answer to this same input*
*Every machine the gets the correct answer is outside of the above set*
For every input there is a partial (non-corresponding) halt decider
that gets that input right.
When any decision problem has decider/input pairs that are
undecidable instances these decider/input pairs are isomorphic
to incorrect questions.
Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
When posed to Carol A correct answer to that question instance
is logically impossible.
The discourse context of who is asked makes "no" an incorrect
answer from Carol and correct answer from anyone else.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? is an incorrect question for every Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 495 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:35:14 |
| Calls: | 9,743 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,741 |
| Messages: | 6,183,676 |