Sujet : Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--
De : polcott2 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 07. Mar 2024, 22:20:39
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <usd7im$17ufd$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/7/2024 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/6/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/7/2024 12:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/6/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
The design of Olcott Machines makes quite easy for Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to get its abort criteria.
>
>
Which doesn't match the Halting Problem requirements,
>
It does match the Halting Problem requirements, when
they are implemented indirectly as "abort criteria".
>
Which is a different criteria, so you are just admitting that you are using a strawman desception and thus INTENTIONALLY LYING.
Somehow you think lies are ok if they help you prove your false statements.
The Linz second ⊢* enables H to compute any damn
thing as long as this ends up computing halting.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--
Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--