home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 57,836 of 59,235   
   olcott to Richard Damon   
   Re: Succinct rebuttal to the Linz haltin   
   05 Aug 25 19:40:21   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/5/2025 5:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/5/25 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, it has *H* embedded in it, not something else.   
   >   
      
   Yes that is what I just said.   
      
   > That H is only a hypothetical Halt Decider, but it is EXACTLY that H   
   > that is embedded in it.   
   >   
      
   Yes it is. You initially called it a halt decider.   
      
   > And thus since that H returns 0, it halts.   
   >   
      
   No it transitions to its own internal state of Ĥ.qn   
      
   When we construe that embedded H as a halt decider with   
   only ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as its entire domain and that embedded H   
   simulates its input a finite number of steps before   
   transitioning to Ĥ.qn then that embedded H did not   
   correctly predict its own behavior.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca