Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets

On 5/29/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong.
There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.

>
Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>

 *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*

Because you ARE.

 When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
am wrong on any one point.

Nope, you just refuse to even try to rebute the mistaks in your argument.
It is NOT a CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman to point out an error in your logic.
Just because you are yet ready to defend that assumption.

 The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
 *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)

Right, but x and y can be ANYTHING, and are not limited be a template, but if there exists a template for them that will always create a counter example for any H, then the claim is disproven.

 *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
∃H ∈ C_Functions
∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
 

And again, the final line is based on looking at a SINGLE H and a SINGLE D at at time to evaluate it.
If ANY D makes a given H give the wrong answer, that H is removed from the set of possible Hs
If there exists a template to contruct a specific D for any given H that makes the final comparison broken, then there can be no H that satisifies the critereon, and the claim is refuted.
Since if H(D,D) returns 0 for the D built by that template, D(D) will halt, no H that returns 0 for the D built by the template is correct.
And, if H(D,D) returns 1 for the D built by that template, D(D) will loop forever, no H that returns 1 for the D built by the template is correct.
Thus, no H is correct.

 

Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:

>
How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it?

 I did not read it that way.
I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.

Yep, typical Peter Olcott just not understanding what people say.

 

>
[ .... ]
>

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>