Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/16/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/16/2024 3:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:56:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/15/2024 3:51 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:51:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/15/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 03:41:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your
argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
The input to HHH is ALL of the memory that it would be accessed in
a correct simulation of DDD, which includes all the codd of HHH,
and thus, if you change HHH you get a different input.
If you want to try to claim the input is just the bytes of the
function DDD proper then you are just admitting that you are
nothing more than a lying idiot that doesn't understand the
problem,

Turing machines only operate on finite strings they do not operate
on other Turing machines *dumbo*

>
That's right. But the finite string can be a description of a Turing
machine.

No that is wrong. The finite string must encode a Turing machine.

Same difference.

Not at all. The huge mistake of all these years is that people stupidly
expected that HHH to report on the behavior of its own executing Turing
machine. The theory of computation forbids that.

Encoding = description.
HHH isn't executed by anything.

 // HHH is not allowed to report on this DDD
int main() { DDD(); } invokes HHH(DDD);

WHY NOT?
Just because it gets the answers wrong.
I guess you are just admitting that you have been a liar for years.
After all, you used to say that H was a partial halt decider, and the ONLY program that it needed to be correct about was the pathological one.
If you say now, that it isn't allowed to look at it, then I guess you are just admitting you lied about what your deciders were supposed to be doing.

 

It simply reports on a string that
represents itself.
>

That way a Turing machine can say someting about another Turing
machine,

Not exactly. It can only report on the behavior that the input finite
string specifies.

Which is that other TM.

Do you agree?
>

even simulate its complete execution. Or it can count something
simple like the number of states or the set of symbols that the
described Turing machine may write but not erase. But there are
questions that no Turing machine can answer from a description of
another Turing machine.

All of the questions that a TM cannot answer are logical
impossibilities

Not true. Some interesting questions are undecidable.

It is a despicable lie that it even be called "undecidable". It is like
no one can "make up their mind" about the square root of a dead rat.

 

You may dislike the term; it means there is no program that gives
the answer for every input.
>

 The term "undecidable input" incorrectly cites the decider
as the source of the issue instead of rejecting incorrect input.

But their is nothing incorrect about the input (at least not once you let it include all of the code of HHH in it(

 The problem is that no program gives the answer
whether a self-contradictory input is true or false
because the correct answer is neither. It isn't
that the decider "couldn't make up ts mind" it is
that the input was invalid.
 

So, that doesn't make it an illegal input, just one that makes the problem uncomputable.
Since you don't seem to understand the nature of the problem, it seems that you are unsuited for talking about it.