XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
On 2/28/2022 6:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/28/22 7:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/28/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/28/22 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/28/2022 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
This reminded me of Olcott
<https://xkcd.com/2566/>
André
You still have not shown that I am incorrect.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
It is the case than unless embedded_H aborts the simulation of its
input that this input would never stop running.
It is also the case that the fact that this
IS A REASONABLE MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A NON HALTING
SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.
The above two facts taken together prove that the essence of my idea
is correct.
It is only a reasonable measure if H NEVER aborts its simulation (not
unless, NEVER).
It is known to be a reasonable measure on the basis of the meaning of
its words. The meaning of these words are simply over your head.
Nope. Maybe to someone who doesn't understand the REAL meaning.
Since we HAVE an actual definition, and you have even shown you KNOW it,
the fact that you don't use it just shows you are a pathological liar.
BY DEFINITION:
H <M> w needs to -> H.Qy if M w Halts and -> H.Qn if M w never halts.
Thus H <H^> <H^> needs to go to H.Qy if H^ <H^> Halts.
Since you claim that H <H^> <H^> is correct in going to H.Qn we know
that it does this, and we also know by the rules of construction of H^
that the H^ that this copy of H was put into when applied to <H^> will
use that H to see that H -> H.Qn, so H^ -> H^.Qn and Halts.
Since if H^ applied to <H^> Halts, we know that for H to have been
correct, it needed to go to H.Qy not H.Qn, so BY DEFINTION H was wrong,
and any claim otherwise is just a LIE.
The actual behavior of the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H proves that I am right.
When someone smashes a Boston cream pie in your face denying that this
is not possible "in theory" does not stop the pie from dripping from
your face.
Maybe these words are just over your head, if so, you need to stop
lyiing and making claims you know something about this.
FAIL.
For every type of non-halting sequence of configurations:
(a) Infinite loop
(b) Infinite Recursion
(c) Infinitely nested simulation
(d) Pathological self-reference
except it doesn't work for (d) as shown above.
It does work for (d) you are merely having a break from reality.
It is the case that unless embedded_H aborts the simulation of its input
that this simulation never stops. You know and acknowledge that this is
true.
A reasonable mind (not yours) would comprehend that this means that the
input to embedded_H specifies a sequence of configurations that never
halt in the same way that an infinite loop specifies a sequence of configurations that never halt. It is the exact same principle in both
cases.
You keep saying that if H aborts its simulation that the infinitely
nested simulation no longer exists. This is exactly the same as when H
aborts its simulation of an infinite loop, the loop stops running
because it has been aborted.
Aborting the simulation of an otherwise infinite sequence of
configurations does not magically transform them into halting computations.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)