Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 23. Jun 2025, 08:02:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <103au67$13olm$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2025-06-22 16:01:23 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/22/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 17:30:25 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 6/21/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 16:39:40 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 6/19/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
 But this is not. A proof starts with assumptions that may be true of
false. Each statement that is not a definition, axiom, postulate,
hypthesis or other assumption follows from some previous statements
by an inference rule. The conclusion of a proof is the last statement
of the sequence.
 Some proofs begin with definitions instead of assumptions.
 Definitions often enable a clearer presentation of the assumptions
and of the proof.
 
 Some proofs begin with "assumptions" that are defined to be
true, thus are not really mere assumptions at all.
 <snip>>>>
Depending on the style of the proof one can ither prove that
the counter example exists or that if a halting decider exists
then the caunter example exists, too, and otherwise none is
needed.
 No this is counter-factual.
It has never been possible for *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to do
the opposite of whatever value that it decider decides.
*For 90 years no one ever bothered to notice this*
 There is nothing impossible in Linz' construction of the
counter example. If you think there is you could tell us
the page, paragraph, and sentence in Linz' book that says
someting impossible.
 
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
When M is applied to WM
q0 WM ⊢* Ĥ q0 WM WM ⊢* Ĥ∞
    if M applied to WM halts, and
q0 WM ⊢* Ĥ q0 Wm WM ⊢* Ĥ y1 qn y2
    if M applied to WM does not halt.
 *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
   if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
   if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
 This does not have embedded_H reporting on the
behavior specified by its input it has embedded_H
reporting on its own behavior.
 When embedded_H is a simulating partial halt decider
then its transition to Ĥ.qn does correctly report that
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its own simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
 *It does this even though embedded_H itself halts. embedded_H*
*is not allowed to report on its own behavior. It is only*
*allowed to report on the behavior that its input specifies*
 When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ and embedded_H is a
simulating partial halt decider
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation until
embedded_H sees the repeating pattern and transitions to Ĥ.qn.
 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its own simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ thus can
never do the opposite of whatever embedded_H decides.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
 Nothing above shows that Ĥ cannot be consructed if H is given,
nor shows any error in the proof that Ĥ <Ĥ> halts if and only if
H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> says "does not halt".
 
 The proof shows that Ĥ <Ĥ> halts when Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transitions to Ĥ.qn yet Ĥ <Ĥ> is not an input to Ĥ.embedded_H
Not "when" but "if". The proof does not prove that Ĥ <Ĥ> transitions
to Ĥ.qn. Instead it proves that if and only if H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> halts in H.qn
then Ĥ halts in Ĥ.qn.

There has never been any HP proof where the actual input
does the opposite of whatever its decider decides.
What proof needs to prove and does prove is that H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> does not
do what a halt decider is required to do, from which it then proves
that H is not a halt decider.
--
Mikko

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jun 25 * Re: "big fat ignorant liar"46Richard Damon
10 Jun 25 `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"45olcott
10 Jun 25  `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"44Richard Damon
10 Jun 25   `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"43olcott
10 Jun 25    +- Re: "big fat ignorant liar"1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25    `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"41Mikko
11 Jun 25     `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"40olcott
11 Jun 25      +- Re: "big fat ignorant liar"1Richard Damon
12 Jun 25      `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"38Mikko
12 Jun 25       `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"37olcott
12 Jun 25        +- Re: "big fat ignorant liar"1Richard Damon
13 Jun 25        `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"35Mikko
13 Jun 25         `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"34olcott
15 Jun 25          `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"33Mikko
15 Jun 25           `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"32olcott
16 Jun 25            `* Re: "big fat ignorant liar"31Mikko
18 Jun 25             `* HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist30olcott
18 Jun 25              +* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist16joes
18 Jun 25              i`* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist15olcott
19 Jun 25              i `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist14Mikko
20 Jun 25              i  `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist13olcott
21 Jun 25              i   `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist12Mikko
21 Jun 25              i    `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist11olcott
22 Jun 25              i     `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist10Mikko
22 Jun 25              i      `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist9olcott
23 Jun 25              i       `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist8Mikko
23 Jun 25              i        `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist7olcott
24 Jun 25              i         `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist6Mikko
24 Jun 25              i          `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist5olcott
25 Jun 25              i           `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist4Fred. Zwarts
25 Jun 25              i            `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist3olcott
26 Jun 25              i             +- Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist1Mikko
26 Jun 25              i             `- Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist1Fred. Zwarts
19 Jun 25              `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist13Mikko
20 Jun 25               `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist12olcott
20 Jun 25                +* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist2joes
20 Jun 25                i`- Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist1olcott
21 Jun 25                `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist9Mikko
21 Jun 25                 `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof8olcott
22 Jun 25                  `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof7Mikko
22 Jun 25                   `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof6olcott
23 Jun 25                    `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof5Mikko
23 Jun 25                     `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof4olcott
24 Jun 25                      `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof3Mikko
24 Jun 25                       `* Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof2olcott
25 Jun 25                        `- Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist --- Peter Linz HP Proof1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal