Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩

On 5/27/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/27/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/27/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:

 

I totally do. Can you please write down the
"completely specified state transition/tape operation table."
of this specific (thus uniquely identifiable) machine I would
really like to see it.
>

>
But it was proven that no such machine exists!
>
Remember, the proof starts with the hypothetical that such a machine exists. Such a machine WOULD HAVE a completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
>

>
That is not what you said.
 >>>>> There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100%
 >>>>> completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
>
"a 100% completely specified state transition/tape operation table"
of a non-existent machine.

>
Right, by presuming that you have a Turing Machine, you have a completly specified state transition/tape operation table.
>
You may not KNOW what that table is if you don't know what the exact machine is, but you know it exists.

  >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
 > ... but you know it exists.
  >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
 > ... but you know it exists.
  >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
 > ... but you know it exists.
 

Really, then show that one exists!
That is, an actual Turing Machine that halts in state Qy if the Machine/Input that its input describes will halt when run and halt in state Qn if the Machine/Input that its input describes will never halt when run.
All you have done is claimed that your "Turing machine equivalent" (that actually isn't) was correct to answer non-halting even thought the program given to it actually halted, but you said it was still right.
I think you have gotten something confuesed.