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

On 3/7/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2024 10:45 AM, immibis wrote:

On 7/03/24 16:53, olcott wrote:

H(D,D) could never provide a return value consistent with the direct
execution of D(D)

>
In other words: H doesn't solve the halting problem.

 According the assumption where H is required to report on
something besides the behavior that it actually sees, Olcott
H(D,D) is not a correct halt decider and Linz H is a correct
halt decider.

Except that isn't an "Assumption" that is the stipulated Definition, which by your own words, you aren't allowed to dispute.

 I have never admitted that I am wrong about H(D,D). Instead
of that I switched my frame-of-reference to the conventional
view where H(D,D) is required to report on different behavior
than it actually sees.
  From this frame of reference the fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is wrong
makes H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correct.
 

Except that you presuppose that they give different answers proving that you built H^ wrong.
What ever answer H (H^) (H^) gives, so must H^.H (H^) (H^) because they are the exact same algorithm working on the exact same data, which you have conceeded (by not showing how they could differ, even though you also claim they must be able to) will result in the same answer.
Thus, you are admitting that your argument is wrong and just based on unsupported, and in fact, factually incorrect, assumptions.
You are just showing that you are nothing more than a stupid and ignorant pathological lying idiot.