Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 3:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:>>>

I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:
>
* What the halting problem proofs prove is correct

>
I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit.
>
Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false
assumption means incorrect?

>
And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that performs the following mapping:
>

>
That is not what I said you damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.
>

 If you're referring to the supposed assumption that no input can do the opposite of what it's halt decider says, that is not in fact an assumption but follows from a series of truth preserving operations from the actual assumption that an H exists that can perform the following mapping:
 

Show exactly how to encode *AN INPUT* that actually
does the opposite of whatever value that its termination
analyzer returns. Make sure you do this in C.
It is only because no one ever bothered to encode the
halting problem in a fully functional completely defined
language that no one ever noticed this before.
Even the Linz proof fails to do this.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Does not show *AN INPUT* to embedded_H that does
the opposite of whatever embedded_H decides.
The computation that embedded_H is embedded within
*IS NOT AN INPUT* to embedded_H.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer