XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Wed, 06 Aug 2025 12:44:56 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > On 8/6/2025 12:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 06 Aug 2025 07:01:18 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> No, the proofs are asking if such a halt decider exists so it is a   
   >> *premise* (a statement that is provisionally accepted as true for the   
   >> purpose of the argument) that a *hypothetical* H exists and the proofs   
   >   
   > Yes you have that exactly correct.   
      
   The next bit is exactly correct too:   
      
   >   
   >> then go on to show that such an H cannot exist.   
   >>   
   >> /Flibble   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)