XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   > then go on to show that such an H cannot exist.   
   >   
   > /Flibble   
      
      
   --   
   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)