XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/21/2025 4:28 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-07-20 15:02:30 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> On 7/20/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-07-19 15:11:21 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 7/19/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-07-17 14:44:23 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Indeed.  All you have done is disagree with one of the proofs of the   
   >>>>>>> halting theorem.  You have yet to show an error in it.  That will be   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)