Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05
 --partial agreement--
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:20:13 -0800
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usdi3g$15ejn$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <us8shn$7g2d$1@dont-email.me> <us92f0$uvql$4@i2pn2.org>
 <us931e$8gmr$1@dont-email.me> <usa4rk$10ek4$3@i2pn2.org>
 <usa5to$gp0j$1@dont-email.me> <usa8lp$10ek5$5@i2pn2.org>
 <usa9o9$ho7b$1@dont-email.me> <usag21$118jg$1@i2pn2.org>
 <usanbu$klu7$1@dont-email.me> <usavv8$m3rv$5@dont-email.me>
 <usb0fh$m7mn$4@dont-email.me> <usbb7s$12dn0$1@i2pn2.org>
 <usbbtq$rneq$2@dont-email.me> <usbfjn$12dmv$7@i2pn2.org>
 <usbm60$tg2q$2@dont-email.me> <usbnb6$12dmv$16@i2pn2.org>
 <usbpb4$u2pm$1@dont-email.me> <usd6aa$150h1$2@i2pn2.org>
 <usd7im$17ufd$1@dont-email.me> <usdelo$15934$1@i2pn2.org>
 <usdh52$19t1n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:20:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1227383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <usdh52$19t1n$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3436
Lines: 46

On 3/7/24 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/7/24 12:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2024 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/7/2024 12:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The design of Olcott Machines makes quite easy for Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> to get its abort criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which doesn't match the Halting Problem requirements,
>>>>>
>>>>> It does match the Halting Problem requirements, when
>>>>> they are implemented indirectly as "abort criteria".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is a different criteria, so you are just admitting that you 
>>>> are using a strawman desception and thus INTENTIONALLY LYING.
>>>>
>>>> Somehow you think lies are ok if they help you prove your false 
>>>> statements.
>>>
>>> The Linz second ⊢* enables H to compute any damn
>>> thing as long as this ends up computing halting.
>>>
>>
>> Note quite, it is whatever the algorithm for H generates.
>>
>> That exact same algorithm exists in H^.H, so that WILL get the same 
>> answer, and since you logic says it doesn't, that means you are lying 
>> that H^ was built by the specification, or as to what H will actually do.
> 
> *Already addressed in my reply to you here*
> We finally know exactly how H1(D,D) derives a different result than H(D,D)
> 

Yes, and that makes H1 a different decider than H so doesn't refute the 
error that H makes.

And H can't give the right answer to the HALTING Question, as H^.H gives 
it EXACTLY what H will say, so it can do the opposite.