On 1/31/2023 8:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Ric...@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 1/31/23 6:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "
dklei...@gmail.com" <
dklei...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> You have seen no real rebuttal because you have never shown us your
>>>> proof - the code for your H. Since you keep it hidden we must assume
>>>> it contains errors.
>>> What? He's published H but it makes no odds whether it's correct or not
>>> because he has told us, long ago, that he's not concerned with the
>>> halting problem:
>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>> He as explicitly stated that he's "redefined" what a non-halting
>>> computation is:
>>> "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>>> unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the
>>> conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few
>>> more."
>>> I don't think he could have been clearer.
>>> I'm not sure how he has managed to keep people talking about this other
>>> "not quite the halting problem", but he has.
>>>
>>>> I assume that what you are doing is trying to prove that a universal
>>>> Turing Machine decider exists by showing that one proof that none
>>>> exists is not correct.
>>> No, he's trying to show that something that is not the halting problem
>>> can be decided. I'm not sure why anyone cares about this other problem.
>>> Certainly he has never been able to show any error in any proof. But
>>> then he does not know what a proof is. He thinks that if
>>> A, B, C ⊦ X then A, B, C, ~A ⊬ X
>>>
>>>> But what I just said does not follow and you
>>>> are rebutted.
>>
>> The problem is even though he has redefined it, he still says it is
>> the "equivalent" problem and thus he has disproved the proof.
>
> Why is that a problem? He's been clear that whatever H is doing, it is
> not deciding halting:
>
Russell's Paradox was only eliminated by redefining set theory thus
redefining the problem. *Below I prove that H(D,D)==0 is correct*
I
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
II
The correct simulation of D by H meets the (a) portion above
III
The relationship between H and D is the exact same pathological
relationship of the HP proofs
Therefore the fact that H(D,D)==0 is correct refutes the conventional HP
proofs.