XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/21/2025 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)