XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 19:25:54 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > On 8/1/2025 7:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 19:07:44 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Recognising such a repeating pattern is no different to recognising   
   >> repeated state in a finite state machine however such a recogniser, a   
   >> simulating halt decider, is only a partial decider so of little   
   >> interest as far as the Halting Problem is concerned.   
   >>   
   >> /Flibble   
   >   
   > My sole purpose is to show that the conventional HP proofs do not prove   
   > undecidability. I have done that.   
      
   No you haven't as what you are trying to show has nothing to do with the   
   Halting Problem which is only concerned with total deciders not partial   
   deciders.   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)