Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 22. May 2025, 00:14:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 21/05/2025 23:34, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2025 4:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 21/05/2025 21:28, olcott wrote:
<snip>
no one ever
tried to completely encode every detail.
>
Why would they? One would have to be pretty stupid to try.
>
<snip>
Show an actual input to HHH that actually does
the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns.
You don't listen good, do you?
Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible.
That is not what he proved.
All of the proofs ASSUME that there is an input D
that can ACTUALLY DO the opposite of whatever value
that H returns making it impossible for H to decide D.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer