Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 14:50:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fc4dac2bb33a0d14c620e44e507d942c0d7dda9d@i2pn2.org>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org>
 <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <100p0sb$3uag8$1@dont-email.me>
 <100p7ej$3voas$1@dont-email.me> <100q760$5buc$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:03:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1626925"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100q760$5buc$4@dont-email.me>

On 5/23/25 12:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2025 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-23 05:25:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2025 8:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2025 06:41, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2025 00:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not what he proved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you'll be able to write a universal termination analyser 
>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>> correctly report for any program and any input whether it halts. 
>>>>>>> Good
>>>>>>> luck with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not. But I'm just reflecting. He seemed to think that my 
>>>>> inability to write the kind of program Turing envisaged (an 
>>>>> inability that I readily concede) is evidence for his argument. 
>>>>> Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if olcott had refuted the proofs of the
>>>>>> insolvability of the Halting Problem -- or even if he had proved
>>>>>> that a universal halt decider is possible
>>>>>
>>>>> And we both know what we both think of that idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>> -- that doesn't imply
>>>>>> that he or anyone else would be able to write one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor I. Mike Terry seems to have a pretty good handle on it, but no 
>>>>> matter how clearly he explains it to me my eyes glaze over and I 
>>>>> start to snore.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, it's the way I tell 'em!
>>>>
>>>> Here's what the tabloids might have said about it, if it had made 
>>>> the front pages when the story broke:
>>>>
>>>>   COMPUTER BOFFIN IS TURING IN HIS GRAVE!
>>>>
>>>>   An Internet crank claims to have refuted Linz HP proof by creating a
>>>>   Halt Decider that CORRECTLY decides its own "impossible input"!
>>>>   The computing world is underwhelmed.
>>>>
>>>> Better?  (Appologies for the headline, it's the best I could come up 
>>>> with.)
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> That is not a valid sentence: there is an subordinate clause and two
>> main clauses but nothing that combines the main clauses to an overall
>> meaning.
>>
> 
> Is is not supposed to be an English sentence nitwit.
> It is a simplification of the Linz definition of Ĥ.
> On the top of page 3:
> 
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
> 
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0  ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> 

And what is wrong with his definition?

And why did you need to change what he said? It seems just so you can 
lie by changing the meaning.


> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> (g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation
> 
> 
> 

But that isn't what happens, since the emulation started in (c) will 
eventually abort its simulation and goe to qn, since that is what you 
have claimed your H does, showing that it didn't do that CORRECTLY, it 
just did it, and made itself wrong.