XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/1/2025 7:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   I have showed that the conventional proofs of the halting problem   
   do not prove undecidability. It is reported that there are other   
   unconventional proofs. Ben mentioned one of them.   
      
   int Sipser_D()   
   {   
      if (HHH(Sipser_D) == 1)   
        return 0;   
      return 1;   
   }   
      
   The proof that recursively enumerable languages are not   
   recursive seems to fall into the same trap that I derived.   
      
   --   
   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)