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

On 7/20/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-19 14:43:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/19/2024 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 18:26:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/16/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 13:51:14 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
That you agree does not mean that it is wrong.
>

>
Your ignorance that a Turing machine cannot take its own
executing self as an input is no rebuttal what-so-ever.

>
You should not assume that everyone is as stupid as you.
>

>
That all rebuttals to my work have one fatal flaw or
another is beyond the comprehension of my reviewers
provides zero evidence that these rebuttals are not flawed.

>
You can claim that the indications of flaws of your "work" are flawed
but that does not remove the indicated flaws from your work.
>

 Every rebuttal of my work denies a tautology
proving that the rebuttal is incorrect because
all tautologies are necessarily true.

But you claimed "tautology" is not correct because it is based on lying words.

 int main()
{
   DDD();
}
 Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
 *The above is a Tautology*
 

But that is isn't a correct statement, cause by a broken computation system.
Your system, the way you argue it, doesn't all you to change the deciding HHH to be non-aborting with out changing the input.
That means you have stripped your words of valid meaning.
When we fix that, and give the same input that this HHH (one that aborts its emulation) to an emulator that doesn't abort, and that input still calls that original HHH, we see that the emulation DOES reach an end, and thus you are just LYING that this HHH "must abort" is emulation.
All you are doing is proving that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot that doesn't know the real meaning of the words he uses but twists them to form his lies.