XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/5/2025 5:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/4/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/4/2025 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/4/25 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> More precisely H is hypothesized to be a halt decider.   
   >>>> If H actually was an actual halt decider   
   >>>> (as you initially stated) then the Halting Problem   
   >>>> proof would be over before it began.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> No, H is a hypothetical Halt Decider, or a claimed halt decider,   
   >>> depending on which method of proof you are using.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> If you pay close attention you will notice   
   >> that is what I said in my first line above:   
   >> "More precisely H is hypothesized to be a halt decider"   
   >   
   > Which means, such an H must behave exactly like a Halt Decider for our   
   > hypothesis to be possible.   
   >   
      
   Yes   
      
   >>   
   >> It was you that initially said:   
   >> "Ĥ isn't a halt decider, H is."   
   >   
   > And H^ isn't a Halt Decider, PERIOD.   
   >   
   > It never was given the requirements to act like one.   
   >   
   > It has a halt decider inside it,   
      
   Not exactly. It has the hypothetical halt decider H   
   embedded within it.   
      
   > that it used, but that doesn't make it   
   > one itself.   
   >   
   > Unless you consider yourself just a piece of shit, because you have one   
   > inside you.   
      
      
   --   
   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)