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

On 3/7/2024 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/7/24 12:20 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

>
Note quite, it is whatever the algorithm for H generates.
>
That exact same algorithm exists in H^.H, so that WILL get the same answer, and since you logic says it doesn't, that means you are lying that H^ was built by the specification, or as to what H will actually do.

 *Already addressed in my reply to you here*
We finally know exactly how H1(D,D) derives a different result than H(D,D)