Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them --discourse
 context --
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:36:35 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <utamml$2b09e$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <usq5uq$e4sh$1@dont-email.me> <ut24je$1vtvi$6@i2pn2.org>
 <ut25ro$2e06s$1@dont-email.me> <ut26nf$1vtvj$10@i2pn2.org>
 <ut276t$2e06s$6@dont-email.me> <ut28ab$1vtvj$18@i2pn2.org>
 <ut28qp$2e06s$12@dont-email.me> <ut2bf3$1vtvi$15@i2pn2.org>
 <ut2bs2$2f6aj$2@dont-email.me> <ut2h69$1vtvi$18@i2pn2.org>
 <ut2j5t$2gkoj$2@dont-email.me> <ut2k2h$1vtvj$26@i2pn2.org>
 <ut2kv3$2grvf$2@dont-email.me> <ut32se$2n598$3@dont-email.me>
 <ut3514$2n0uu$7@dont-email.me> <ut36tn$2notf$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut3a9n$2nm61$5@dont-email.me> <ut4eb8$23135$1@i2pn2.org>
 <ut4em7$2v4ce$3@dont-email.me> <ut4om5$23hsb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <ut4ps6$31jue$1@dont-email.me> <ut728u$3jbb8$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut78bh$3jbbs$7@dont-email.me> <ut7i9i$272r8$1@i2pn2.org>
 <ut7uof$3peut$5@dont-email.me> <ut81n9$3qb6d$2@dont-email.me>
 <ut8gkj$l2l$1@dont-email.me> <ut8h5g$m2e$5@dont-email.me>
 <ut8jku$t3b$5@dont-email.me> <ut9phl$8oja$5@dont-email.me>
 <utahlo$e0s4$4@dont-email.me> <utaj38$e1jp$8@dont-email.me>
 <utak8b$e0s4$15@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2457902"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <utak8b$e0s4$15@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4279
Lines: 65

On 3/18/24 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 6:35 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 19/03/24 00:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2024 11:19 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/24 06:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2024 11:49 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/03/24 05:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> When H1 says YES it is right.
>>>>>>> When H says YES it is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any halt decider is right to say YES on the input (D,D) if and 
>>>>>> only if D(D) halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *When H(D,D) says YES D gets stuck at line 05*
>>>>>
>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   D(D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would be a different D. The facts that Hah(Dah,Dah) returns 
>>>> TRUE and Dah gets stuck at line 05 do not prove that Han(Dan,Dan) 
>>>> returns TRUE and Dan gets stuck at line 05.
>>>
>>> *D is always the exact same finite string of machine code bytes*
>>>
>>
>> The argument to a halting decider must be a self-contained program and 
>> the input to that program. The same finite string must always have the 
>> same behaviour.
> 
> 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
> 
> is self-contained yet still refers to an infinite set of encoding of H
> such that the answer Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is always contradicted.
> 
> Every yes/no question: Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt?
> such that YES is a correct answer from one entity
> and YES is an incorrect answer from another entity
> is an incorrect question when posed to this second entity.
> 


More of your lies.


H^ in Linz's proof is ALWAYS a SPECIFIC MACHINE and contains a copy of a 
SPECIFIC (but general) decider.

You are just too stupid to understand what he is saying, which has made 
you into the self-made pathetic moronic ignorant pathological lying 
idiot that you are today.
And, it seems you have no one to blame but yourself, as it seems you 
worked ery hard to make your self this dumb.