XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/6/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/6/25 7:15 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/6/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 8/5/25 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is a requirement of the aspect of Ĥ named Ĥ.embedded_H.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Depends on which system you are working in.   
   >>>   
   >>> IF you are talking about Linz system, where H *IS* a Halt Decider,   
   >> If H *is* a halt decider then the proof that no halt   
   >> decider exists is done.   
   >   
   > Nope, because while in that system, H *IS* a Halt Decider, but might not   
   > actually exist.   
   >   
      
   A lack of sufficient precision in your words again.   
   H *is* a halt decider that may not exist is a contradiction.   
      
   > It seems you don't undertstand that concept,   
   >   
      
   You are not being careful enough with the precision of your words.   
      
   >>   
   >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞,   
   >> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and   
   >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn   
   >> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.   
   >>   
   >> *Lines 2 and 4 above*   
   >> *Does insist that Ĥ.embedded_H report on its own behavior*   
   >   
   > Which is perfectly valid, if done by giving the decider an input   
   > representing a program that uses that decider.   
   >   
   > Note, the input doesn't "refer" to the decider, it just has a   
   > description of that decider within the description of the program.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>     "The contradiction in Linz's (or Turing's) self-referential   
   >>      halting construction only appears if one insists that the   
   >>      machine can and must decide on its own behavior, which is   
   >>      neither possible nor required."   
   >>   
   >> https://chatgpt.com/share/6890ee5a-52bc-8011-852e-3d9f97bcfbd8   
   >>   
   >   
   > Which since you LIED and said deciders aren't responsible for all input   
   > in the domain (the descriptions of all programs) that answer is just   
   > meaningless.   
   >   
      
   Turing machines are not in the domain of any other Turing machine.   
      
   > Sorry, you are just proving you are just a stupid liar.   
   >   
      
   It is you not being precise enough with the meaning of words.   
      
   --   
   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)