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

On 5/29/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>

>
And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that claim is proven false.
>

>
YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT
THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT
>

>
How?
>

>
The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets
an answer of no, no such H exists.
>
>

>
So, you now agree with Linz. Good.
>

 I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz
template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input
pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set
of C function / input pairs.
 

The difference is, In Linz's formulation, each machine is INDIVIDUALLY EVALUTED with its inputs, and a specific input is shown to exist for each one that makes it wrong.
YOU try o merge them all together to claim that since none of them reach a final state in its partial simulation (for those that answer) that means that all the inputs represented non-halting machines,
THAT is just invalid logic.
You just don't understand how to do logic with qualifiers.