Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs VERIFIED FACT

On 5/1/25 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2025 2:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 30/04/2025 19:30, Mike Terry wrote:

On 30/04/2025 16:46, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 30/04/2025 16:15, olcott wrote:

On 4/29/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/04/2025 22:38, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
HHH is correct DD as non-halting BECAUSE THAT IS
WHAT THE INPUT TO HHH(DD) SPECIFIES.

>
You're going round the same loop again.
>
Either your HHH() is a universal termination analyser or it isn't.

>
The domain of HHH is DD.

>
Then it is attacking not the Halting Problem but the Olcott Problem, which is of interest to nobody but you.

>
It would be (if correct) attacking the common proof for HP theorem as it occurs for instance in the Linz book which PO links to from time to time.

>
Yes. That's what I call the Olcott Problem.
>
De gustibus non est disputandum, but I venture to suggest that (correctly) overturning Turing's proof would be of cosmos-rocking interest to the world of computer science, compared to which pointing out a minor flaw in a minor[1] proof would, even if correct, have no more effect on our field than lobbing a pebble into the swash at high tide.
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 DD correctly simulated by HHH according to the rules of
the x86 language CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS FINAL HALT
STATE NO MATTER WHAT HHH DOES.

But HHH doesn't correctly emulate DD since the rules of the x86 language do not allow the processor to just stop when it feel like.

  Unless we have DD correctly simulated by HHH we do
not have the actual correct mapping of the actual
input to the actual behavior of this actual input.
 Unless we have DD correctly simulated by HHH we do
not have the actual correct mapping of the actual
input to the actual behavior of this actual input.
 Unless we have DD correctly simulated by HHH we do
not have the actual correct mapping of the actual
input to the actual behavior of this actual input.
 Unless we have DD correctly simulated by HHH we do
not have the actual correct mapping of the actual
input to the actual behavior of this actual input.
 

No, we have the proof that you are just a pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, and whose "correct reasoning" appears to be based on the assumption that you can assume to be true statements that are not actually true, and you can ignore the ACTUAL meaning of the words you are using.
Sorry, you have toperdoes your reputation to the bottom of the lake, and will be joining it shortly.