Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention

On 2024-07-16 14:46:40 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/16/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:

 When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
then your disagreement has no actual basis.
 *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
 Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
with arithmetic.

 A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just
like the uncomputability of halting is.

 The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem
is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior
of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of
whatever DDD reports.

 No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is.

 Which is simply a logical impossibility

Yes, a halting decider is a logical impossibility, as can be and has
been proven.

thus no actual limit to computation more that this logical impossibility:
What time is it (yes or no)?

As construction of a halting decider is already known to be impossible
why would anyone care whether there is other limitations about it?
And of course the impossibility of halting decider prevents any applicaions
of it, for example as a tool to solve other problems.

*This is isomorphic the HP decider/input pair*
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? (Hehner:2018:2)

Perhaps you can use the isomorphism to proove that Carol can't.
But that should be faily easy anyway.
--
Mikko