XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/19/25 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 7/19/2025 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 7/19/25 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:>>   
   >>> When you change my words and use those words as the basis   
   >>> of your rebuttal you know that you cheat.   
   >>>   
   >>> The infinite simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H   
   >>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated final   
   >>> halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ you fucking moron.   
   >>   
   >> Which is just a strawman, as the definition of non-halting behavior of   
   >> the input, is that when the machine the input describes,   
   > If you only learn by rote memorization it may seem that way.   
   > When you have a depth of understanding then you see that   
   > what you said is merely an incorrect paraphrase of this:   
      
   That your are quoting from never-learned ignorance doesn't releave you   
   of the sin of lying, since it has been explained to you what the true   
   definition is,   
      
   Sorry, you are just proving that you think lies are valid logic, and   
   thus have earned your place in that lake of fire.   
      
   >   
   > Turing machine (at least partial) halt deciders only compute   
   > the mapping from their finite string inputs to the actual   
   > behavior that this input finite string actually specifies.   
   >   
      
   And that behavior is DEFINED by the behavior of the direct exectution of   
   the program it represents (and it must represent a program, including   
   ALL the code it uses).   
      
   It can also equivalent be seen as the UTM simulation of that exact same   
   input, which also will include the code of the same HHH as the input   
   given to HHH.   
      
      
   > Conventional notation of a Turing Machine: Ĥ   
   > Conventional notation of a TM description: ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >   
   > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞,   
   >    if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and   
   > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   
   >    if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.   
   >   
   > *Is corrected to this*   
   >   
   > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞   
   >      ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches   
   >      its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩, and   
   > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   
   >      ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly   
   >      reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.   
      
   WRONG, READ THE SPECS AGAIN.   
      
   THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT SIMULATION   
      
   YOU ARE JUST PROVING YOU ARE A STUPID PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.   
      
   the criteria is if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ will halt when run.   
      
   That you can't uinderstand that just is an admission of your stupid   
   ignorance.   
      
   >   
   > *Original proof*   
   > https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf   
   >   
      
   Just rote repeating your lies just proves you are a pathological liar.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)