Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: immibis <news2@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:09:14 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <v3su0a$1infb$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3og5t$328ec$9@i2pn2.org> <v3oh4q$pi6u$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3p6jq$sg73$3@dont-email.me> <v3pr0p$1003g$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3qc3c$1305p$1@dont-email.me> <v3qpp1$15div$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3smh1$1ihop$1@dont-email.me> <v3smsg$1iedv$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3sof4$1ihop$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 20:09:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eebb440f736cc82db8a314593242fdfb";
	logging-data="1662443"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1gTpv8AFWZDQ7bIBOHDOP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f7d2za/ed5+Nn5+cFEr42r94YVY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3sof4$1ihop$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2239

On 6/06/24 18:34, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Your own proof shows that main halts. Your own proof shows that HH 
> returns a non-halting result. By *definition* that is a false negative.

Olcott believes that DD(DD) and the input to HH(DD,DD) are two different 
things, and that facts about one have absolutely no relation to the 
other, so he thinks this is not a false negative.

He believes all three things are true:
* DD(DD) halts.
* The input to HH(DD,DD) doesn't halt.
* HH(DD,DD) is a correct simulation of DD(DD).

This is like believing that:
* 2+2=4
* The input to Plus(2,2) specifies a total of 5.
* Plus is a correct simulation of +