Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--

On 8/03/24 17:15, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2024 10:09 AM, immibis wrote:

On 8/03/24 07:30, olcott wrote:

Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <Ĥ> immediately detects that is about to simulate a
copy of itself with a copy of its own input thus immediately
detects recursive simulation just like H(D,D).
>
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> immediately detects that is NOT about to simulate a
copy of itself with a copy of its own input thus immediately
rejects recursive simulation just like H1(D,D).

>
And what about Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> ?
>

 Let's first determine that Olcott machines refute
the uncomputability of the Peter Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Peter Linz Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a Turing machine. The exact same proof does not work for Olcott machines because they are different. A different proof proves that Olcott machines cannot compute the halting problem. I have already told you this proof (but not in great detail).

 Because my cancer came back in less than 24 months that
means I don't have time for endless divergence.
 

Then why do you keep doing it?