Re: Can Flibble’s neos-based solution still be Turing Complete?

On 5/26/25 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-25 14:42:17 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/25/2025 1:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-24 16:02:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/23/2025 9:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Yes, **Flibble’s neos-based solution can still be Turing Complete as a
whole**, even though it **disallows programs from referencing the
decider**.
>
Let’s break this down precisely.

>
A more useful application of the term Turing Complete would be that

 ...
>
The only useful meaning is what the term actually means. Any other
meaning is harmful.

>
Analysis of complex theory of computation problems
is much more effective at the higher levels of
abstraction of higher level languages.
>
For example because the x86 language has relative
addressing the underlying model of computation
specified by the x86 language has unlimited memory
thus is Turing complete.

>
The generic x86 language does not specify the mapping from addresses
to memory locations. Different x86 processors do it differently. A
particular processor may be able to shift the mapping of a part of
the address space to a previous or next block of a potentially
infinite memory. However, the usual models can pnly map it to a larger
finite memory.
>
None of which is irrelevan to my note that the only useful meaning is
what the term actually means.
>

Turing complete cannot possibly make any actual
difference at all as long as the model of computation
has enough memory for the algorithm.

>
It doesn't as long as you can compute every function you want to compute.
But if you don't know what you will want then having a Turing complete
system is best you can have.
>

 The best system is a system that actually exists.
there are far too many errors of false assumptions
in models that are only imagined to exist.
 

No, Turing machines "Exist" as they are fully defined in theory, and approximately simulated by software.
The problem is YOUR system doesn't actually exist, at least not in the sense that it meets the requirements on it.
Those starting with that the "Halt Decider" needs to meet the requirments of being a full program that is a computaiton, as is the input.
Since you have admitted (and then tried to deny by contradiction yourself) that your HHH and DDD are not program, your system doesn't meet the requirements and thus your system doesn't really exist.
Note, your description require accepting the contradiction that DDD "includes" the code of the HHH that it calls, so that it can be simulated, but also doesn't include that code when determining that the various DDDs are the "same input".
Since it can't be both, you system doesn't actually exist, as it can't be both.
Sorry, you are just showing that you are living in a make-believe world where the concept of requirements don't apply, and you just assume that a magical "truth fairy" exists that can make you self-contradictory imaginations become true. This just proves that you have no concept of what it means for something to be true, and thus have turned youself into a pathological liar that doesn't care about what is actually true.