Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
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 17:26:47 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <usdifn$1a4o5$1@dont-email.me>
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> <usdi3g$15ejn$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 23:26:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbe692f823dc8310f00dd0aaf1f84978";
	logging-data="1381125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xDAweN/nBWvOL30qFFaFZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7+bMwFX/U9H/V7gUDwXv4HtPepk=
In-Reply-To: <usdi3g$15ejn$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3901

On 3/7/2024 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

You are wrong yet this thread does not so neatly summarize
my thoughts as the other thread so I will not reply here.

> 
> 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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer