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