XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:16 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/20/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 19.jul.2025 om 16:23 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 7/19/2025 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>> Op 18.jul.2025 om 18:09 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>> On 7/18/2025 6:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>> Op 17.jul.2025 om 16:44 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 5:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You lie.  You don't have a proof.  Many people in this group   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> have pointed   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> out lots of errors in various versions of your purported   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> proof, which you   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> just ignore.  The section in Professor Linz's book you used   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> to be so fond   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> take the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding).   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I have addressed ....   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Meaningless pompous word.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> .... all of those details that you make sure to ignore so   
   >>>>>>>>>>> that you can   
   >>>>>>>>>>> baselessly claim that I am wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I vaguely remember rolling my eyes at your hopeless lack of   
   >>>>>>>>>> understanding.  It was like watching a 7 year old trying to do   
   >>>>>>>>>> calculus.   
   >>>>>>>>>> The basic understanding was simply not there.  Years later,   
   >>>>>>>>>> it's still   
   >>>>>>>>>> not there.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And yes, you are wrong.  The proofs of the halting theorem   
   >>>>>>>>>> which involve   
   >>>>>>>>>> constructing programs which purported halting deciders cannot   
   >>>>>>>>>> decide   
   >>>>>>>>>> correctly are correct.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yet you cannot point to even one mistake because there are none.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That's what I'm saying.  Those proofs of the halting theorem are   
   >>>>>>>> free   
   >>>>>>>> from mistakes.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> More to the point, it is YOU who cannot point to any mistakes in   
   >>>>>>>> them.   
   >>>>>>>> They are valid proofs.  Your work, if it contradicts those   
   >>>>>>>> proofs (which   
   >>>>>>>> isn't at all clear) can thus be dismissed without further   
   >>>>>>>> consideration.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples   
   >>>>>>>>>>> of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That's so sloppily worded, it could mean almost anything.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It has been constructed, and is valid.  But one would normally   
   >>>>>>>> talk about   
   >>>>>>>> formulating a proof, rather than constructing one.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [ .... ]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> domain of every halt decider.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And that, too.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*   
   >>>>>>>>>>> *of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And that makes your hat trick.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping   
   >>>>>>>>>>> from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these   
   >>>>>>>>>>> inputs specify.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And a fourth.  There's some semblance of truth in there, but   
   >>>>>>>>>> it's very   
   >>>>>>>>>> confused.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It is not at all confused. I know exactly what it means.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It's very confused to everybody but you, then.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Sloppy wording is your technique to get people to go down to   
   >>>>>>>>>> your level   
   >>>>>>>>>> of discussion.  That involves many posts trying just to tie   
   >>>>>>>>>> you down to   
   >>>>>>>>>> specific word meanings, and is very tiresome and unrewarding.   
   >>>>>>>>>> I decline   
   >>>>>>>>>> to get involved any further.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> *Yet as I claimed you found no actual mistake*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I've found plenty of actual mistakes.  I was a software   
   >>>>>>>> developer by   
   >>>>>>>> profession.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Let me tell you the punchline so that you can   
   >>>>>>>>> see why I said those things.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Despite what I said last post, I will actually go to the trouble of   
   >>>>>>>> analysing your sloppy expression.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Because directly executed Turing machines cannot   
   >>>>>>>>> possibly be inputs to Turing machine deciders this   
   >>>>>>>>> makes them outside of the domain of these deciders.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It's entirely unclear what a "directly executed Turing machine"   
   >>>>>>>> is. Most   
   >>>>>>>> of the time turing machines are theoretical constructs used for   
   >>>>>>>> proving   
   >>>>>>>> theorems.  They can be executed, but rarely are.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It's unclear what you mean by a turing machine being an input to   
   >>>>>>>> a turing   
   >>>>>>>> machine.  Read up about universal turing machines to get a bit of   
   >>>>>>>> background.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> When a partial halt decider is required to report   
   >>>>>>>>> on the direct execution of a machine this requirement   
   >>>>>>>>> is bogus.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> See above.  That paragraph is meaningless.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> This means that the behavior of DD() is none of the damn   
   >>>>>>>>> business of HHH, thus does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.   
   >>>>>>>>> *If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It's fully obscure what DD() and HHH mean, and thus impossible to   
   >>>>>>>> affirm or contradict the meaningless "HHH(DD)==0".   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) does correctly detect that DD simulated by HHH   
   >>>>>>>>> according to the semantics pf the C programming language   
   >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return"statement final   
   >>>>>>>>> halt state.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> See above.  By the way, people concerned with computation theory   
   >>>>>>>> use   
   >>>>>>>> turing machines, which are well-defined, simple, and powerful.   
   >>>>>>>> They lack   
   >>>>>>>> the complexity, ambiguity, and unsuitability for theoretical   
   >>>>>>>> work of real   
   >>>>>>>> world programming languages like C.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> *If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Any mindless idiot can disagree. Showing an error and proving   
   >>>>>>>>> that it is an actual mistake requires much more than this.   
   >>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)