Re: Halt Deciders must be computable functions --- dbush was always wrong

On 3/23/25 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 7:01 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:08:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

The behavior of a directly executing Turing Machine cannot be computed
because a directly executing Turing machine cannot be the input to any
computable function.

Lol. This is such a ridiculously silly objection. Of course a TM is
nothing but a finite string (or can be encoded as such). TMs are
most definitely computable - UTMs are possible.
>

 It is enormously more nuanced than that.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
 Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Incorrect, UTM was never there;, so you are just showing that your logic was a lie.

 When we define the Peter Linz Ĥ with a UTM
that simulates a finite number of "moves"
before transitioning to Ĥ.qn then Ĥ reaches
Ĥ.qn and the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly
reach ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
 

Which is impossible, as such a thing is not a UTM.
You are just showing that your logic is based on the presumption of the impossible and lies to fill the holes.
Sorry, you are just burying your reputation in the lake of fire.