1 view

Skip to first unread message

Jan 31, 2022, 12:23:40 PM1/31/22

to

On 1/31/2022 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:

> On 1/31/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:34:25 -0500

>> Richard Damon <Ric...@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

>>

>>> On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>> Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for

>>>> computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an

>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior

>>>> specified by these actual inputs.

>>>

>>>

>>> And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide

>>> based on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents,

>>> which it the equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM

>>> (which H isn't one if it stops simulating before the input reachs a

>>> final state).

>>>

>>>>

>>>> It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to

>>>> report anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then

>>>> someone comes in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not

>>>> report this.

>>>

>>> Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door'

>>> is.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the

>>>> front door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard

>>>> made a mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door

>>>> (non inputs).

>>>

>>> Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through

>>> the front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting

>>> Problem.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞

>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

>>>>

>>>> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status

>>>> of its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of

>>>> any finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a

>>>> final state of this simulated input.

>>>

>>> And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact,

>>> this "ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.

>>> You are basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if

>>> you have a Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would

>>>> never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to

>>>> Ĥ.qn.

>>>

>>> Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been

>>> proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust

>>> Powered Unicorns.

>>>

>>> FAIL.

>>>

>>>> When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference

>>>> because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.

>>>

>>> Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of

>>> a copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards

>>> were responsible to detect.

>>>

>>> Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.

>>>

>>> FAIL.

>>>

>>>

>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just

>>> lying that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse

>>> to use the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to

>>> shade it with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false

>>> premise.

>>>

>>> Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of

>>> doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself

>>> from being a danger to yourself.

>>>

>>> FAIL.

>>

>> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.

>>

>> /Flibble

>>

>

> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die

> by next December.

>

> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi

>

>

> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Once it is understood that I am correct this opens up a whole new world

for AI research:

(A) Computation will be understood to have truly unlimited potential.

(B) Davidson's truth conditional semantics will finally be anchored in a

correct formal definition of truth, refuting the Tarski Undefinability

theorem.

--

Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;

Genius hits a target no one else can see.

Arthur Schopenhauer

> On 1/31/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:34:25 -0500

>> Richard Damon <Ric...@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

>>

>>> On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>> Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for

>>>> computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an

>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior

>>>> specified by these actual inputs.

>>>

>>>

>>> And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide

>>> based on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents,

>>> which it the equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM

>>> (which H isn't one if it stops simulating before the input reachs a

>>> final state).

>>>

>>>>

>>>> It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to

>>>> report anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then

>>>> someone comes in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not

>>>> report this.

>>>

>>> Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door'

>>> is.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the

>>>> front door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard

>>>> made a mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door

>>>> (non inputs).

>>>

>>> Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through

>>> the front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting

>>> Problem.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞

>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

>>>>

>>>> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status

>>>> of its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of

>>>> any finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a

>>>> final state of this simulated input.

>>>

>>> And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact,

>>> this "ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.

>>> You are basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if

>>> you have a Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would

>>>> never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to

>>>> Ĥ.qn.

>>>

>>> Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been

>>> proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust

>>> Powered Unicorns.

>>>

>>> FAIL.

>>>

>>>> When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference

>>>> because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.

>>>

>>> Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of

>>> a copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards

>>> were responsible to detect.

>>>

>>> Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.

>>>

>>> FAIL.

>>>

>>>

>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just

>>> lying that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse

>>> to use the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to

>>> shade it with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false

>>> premise.

>>>

>>> Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of

>>> doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself

>>> from being a danger to yourself.

>>>

>>> FAIL.

>>

>> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.

>>

>> /Flibble

>>

>

> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die

> by next December.

>

> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi

>

>

> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Once it is understood that I am correct this opens up a whole new world

for AI research:

(A) Computation will be understood to have truly unlimited potential.

(B) Davidson's truth conditional semantics will finally be anchored in a

correct formal definition of truth, refuting the Tarski Undefinability

theorem.

--

Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;

Genius hits a target no one else can see.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu