Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/24/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-23 16:19:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/23/2025 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-23 05:25:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/22/2025 8:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 22/05/2025 06:41, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

On 22/05/2025 00:14, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

[...]

Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible.
>

That is not what he proved.

>
Then you'll be able to write a universal termination analyser that can
correctly report for any program and any input whether it halts. Good
luck with that.

>
Not necessarily.

>
Of course not. But I'm just reflecting. He seemed to think that my inability to write the kind of program Turing envisaged (an inability that I readily concede) is evidence for his argument. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
>

Even if olcott had refuted the proofs of the
insolvability of the Halting Problem -- or even if he had proved
that a universal halt decider is possible

>
And we both know what we both think of that idea.
>

-- that doesn't imply
that he or anyone else would be able to write one.

>
Indeed.
>

I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming.

>
Nor I. Mike Terry seems to have a pretty good handle on it, but no matter how clearly he explains it to me my eyes glaze over and I start to snore.

>
Hey, it's the way I tell 'em!
>
Here's what the tabloids might have said about it, if it had made the front pages when the story broke:
>
  COMPUTER BOFFIN IS TURING IN HIS GRAVE!
>
  An Internet crank claims to have refuted Linz HP proof by creating a
  Halt Decider that CORRECTLY decides its own "impossible input"!
  The computing world is underwhelmed.
>
Better?  (Appologies for the headline, it's the best I could come up with.)
>
Mike.
>

>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

>
That is not a valid sentence: there is an subordinate clause and two
main clauses but nothing that combines the main clauses to an overall
meaning.

>
Is is not supposed to be an English sentence nitwit.

>
Yet another attempt of a straw man deception. I didn't say anything
about English. I only said that it is not a sentence.
>

It is a simplification of the Linz definition of Ĥ.

>
A simplification that omits all meaning is not a useful simplification.
It does not define, it does not describe, it does not require, it does
not say anything at all.
>

 If you are too stupid to understand its meaning
that is not my fault. I even specified its step
by step meaning and you erased that part to make
it easier to lie.