XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/1/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/1/25 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/1/2025 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/1/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:>>   
   >>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H determines the   
   >>>> behavior that *THE ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H   
   >>>> specifies. Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not and cannot possibly be   
   >>>> *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H so its differing   
   >>>> behavior *DOES NOT COUNT*.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> NO!!!!   
   >>>   
   >>> By that standard, any input could mean anything becuase the machine   
   >>> it is being given can do whatever it wants with it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞   
   >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   
   >> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>   
   >> Yes if you ignore that I said that Ĥ.embedded_H   
   >> is based on a UTM and ignore the above is the   
   >> definition of machine Ĥ that could be true.   
   >   
   > "Based on" does not mean *IS*   
   >   
   > If you add code to the original UTM, then it no longer is a UTM, and its   
   > partial simulation is not determative.   
   >   
      
   *That is your one huge mistake*   
   As soon as the repeating pattern emerges then   
   this repeating pattern *is* determinative.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)