Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V55 [ halt deciders ]

[olcott]

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




--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer