Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 20:56 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 8:44 PM, wij wrote:

...

Try to convert it to TM language to know you know nothing.

...

To refute the HP, you need to understand what it exactly means in TM.

 
I have known this for 22 years.

>
A working TM. Build it explicitly from transition function, then explain
your derivation. You know nothing.

He did, in 2018, claim to have exactly such a thing:

  "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
  specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
  Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."

  "I [...] encoded all of the exact TMD instructions of the Linz Turing
  machine H that correctly decides halting for its fully encoded input
  pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)."

  "I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
  Ĥ.qx (Linz incorrectly uses q0 twice) showing exactly how the actual
  Linz H would correctly decide the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."

Of course, no such "fully encoded Turing Machines" were ever produced.
He spent months rowing back this claim, eventually settling on the
notion that he was using "poetic licence" rather than admit he was wrong.

--
Ben.