On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

Olcott (annotated):

If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running

[comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been
fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and
"correctly simulate"]

unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and accepts that
P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.

(I've gone back to his previous names what P is Linz's H^.)

In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
right".

I don't think that's the right paraphrase. He is saying if P were
different (built from a non-aborting H) H's answer would be the right
one.

But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
halted. That much is a truism. What's wrong is to pronounce that
answer as being correct for the D that does, in fact, stop.

And Peter Olcott is a [*beep*]

It's certainly dishonest to claim support from an expert who clearly
does not agree with the conclusions. Pestering, and then tricking,
someone into agreeing to some vague hypothetical is not how academic
research is done. Had PO come clean and ended his magic paragraph with
"and therefore 'does not 'halt' is the correct answer even though D
halts" he would have got a more useful reply.

Let's keep in mind this is exactly what he's saying:

"Yes [H(P,P) == false] is the correct answer even though P(P) halts."

Why? Because:

"we can prove that Halts() did make the correct halting decision when
we comment out the part of Halts() that makes this decision and
H_Hat() remains in infinite recursion"

*I named you because you were my best reviewer on this point*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then

H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Since you were the only one that ever noticed that I did meet
this criteria (the first part) and vehemently disagreed that
that this semantically entails the second part.

Claude AI only agreed that it is correct within my intended
interpretation: with [the simulated] inserted.

H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
that [the simulated] D specifies a non-halting sequence
of configurations.

I considered you my best reviewer on this key point
and directly linked back to your original message.

https://giganews.com/ has all of the messages back
to 2004. This is much more than the next best one.
It only costs $4.99 per month.


Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent set
of stipulated truths and only applies the truth preserving
operation of semantic logical entailment to this finite
set of basic facts inherently derives a truth predicate
that works consistently and correctly for this entire body
of knowledge that can be expressed in language.

?The halting problem, as classically formulated,
relies on an inferential step that is not justified
by a continuous chain of semantic entailment from
its initial stipulations.?
...
"The halting problem?s definition contains a break
in the chain of semantic entailment; it asserts
totality over a domain that its own semantics cannot
support."

*The Halting Problem is Incoherent* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396510896_The_Halting_Problem_is_Incoherent


--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.0
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)