XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:28:09 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > On 8/3/2025 7:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 07:05:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> Your problem is you don't find an error in the shown counter example,   
   >>> because your created input that you claim to solve has essential   
   >>> differences from it.   
   >>>   
   >>> The first one is that you keep on trying to use a non-program, that   
   >>> doesn't include all of its code, like a copy of the decider as part of   
   >>> it,   
   >>>   
   >>> IF you acknoledge that the code of HHH is part of DDD as well as being   
   >>> the decider, then your "simuation of DDD" becomes wrong, as you can't   
   >>> then ignore that the code of the copy of HHH that is in DDD will break   
   >>> the cycle you are seeing in just the function DDD.   
   >>>   
   > Yet again you try to get away with "stopping running"   
   > as the same thing as "halting" even though you recently acknowledged   
   > that they are not the same.   
   >   
   > DDD and HHH correctly emulated by the executed HHH cannot possibly ever   
   > reach their own final halt states no matter what HHH does.   
   >   
   > If HHH aborts after one billion recursive emulations neither the   
   > correctly emulated HHH nor the correctly emulated DDD would ever halt   
   > even though they stop running.   
   >   
   > Richard always uses the strawman fallacy and changes the subject away   
   > from DDD correctly simulated by HHH.   
   > This is a dishonest attempt at deception.   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man   
   >>> Sorry. all you are doing is showing that you think lying is ok, which   
   >>> goes counter to your claimed goal of finding a way to determine truth   
   >>> better.   
   >>   
   >> So Olcott is lying, where do you go from here?   
   >>   
   >> /Flibble   
   >   
   > *I am not lying. Richard is the liar*   
   >   
   > When I say that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot   
   > possibly reach its own final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩   
   > because it remains stuck in recursive simulation this is self-evident by   
   > the meaning of my words.   
      
   Being "stuck in" recursive simulation is not equivalent to non-halting but   
   is instead simply a manifestation which proves the diagnolization proofs   
   are correct however your halt decider is partial so the fact it "aborts   
   the simulation" is irrelevant as far as the halting problem is concerned   
   as that is about total deciders not partial deciders.   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)