Re: Halting Problem Proof ERROR

On 7/19/25 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/19/25 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:>>

When you change my words and use those words as the basis
of your rebuttal you know that you cheat.
>
The infinite simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
cannot possibly reach its own simulated final
halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ you fucking moron.

>
Which is just a strawman, as the definition of non-halting behavior of the input, is that when the machine the input describes,

If you only learn by rote memorization it may seem that way.
When you have a depth of understanding then you see that
what you said is merely an incorrect paraphrase of this:

That your are quoting from never-learned ignorance doesn't releave you of the sin of lying, since it has been explained to you what the true definition is,
Sorry, you are just proving that you think lies are valid logic, and thus have earned your place in that lake of fire.

 Turing machine (at least partial) halt deciders only compute
the mapping from their finite string inputs to the actual
behavior that this input finite string actually specifies.
 

And that behavior is DEFINED by the behavior of the direct exectution of the program it represents (and it must represent a program, including ALL the code it uses).
It can also equivalent be seen as the UTM simulation of that exact same input, which also will include the code of the same HHH as the input given to HHH.

Conventional notation of a Turing Machine: Ĥ
Conventional notation of a TM description: ⟨Ĥ⟩
 Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞,
   if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
   if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
 *Is corrected to this*
 Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
     ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches
     its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
     ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly
     reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.

WRONG, READ THE SPECS AGAIN.
THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT SIMULATION
YOU ARE JUST PROVING YOU ARE A STUPID PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
the criteria is if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ will halt when run.
That you can't uinderstand that just is an admission of your stupid ignorance.

 *Original proof*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
 

Just rote repeating your lies just proves you are a pathological liar.