Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and
 infinite sets
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 20:47:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v38ibi$2fohv$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v36rlr$13000$1@dont-email.me>
 <v37aa6$159q4$4@dont-email.me> <v38eqb$2foi0$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v38fl6$1bndb$2@dont-email.me> <v38g36$2foi0$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v38gpi$1bndb$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 00:47:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2613823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v38gpi$1bndb$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2342
Lines: 36

On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>> ∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>> ∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>> ∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that 
>>>> claim is proven false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT
>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT
>>>
>>
>> How?
>>
> 
> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets
> an answer of no, no such H exists.
> 
> 

So, you now agree with Linz. Good.

So, you did you argue with me saying YOUR statement, which contradicts 
what Linz says, was right.

Or, do you still think that while you can't find an actual error in his 
proof, he must be wrong because you want the claim that a wrong answer 
can be correct?

That just proves your logic, and you mental state, is just inconsistant.