On 10/23/2025 3:13 AM, dart200 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkGk_A4noxI>
That you are unable to pay close enough attention to
understand my proof is no error on my part.
I've never seen you present any body of statements
that even begins to look like a proof.
The halting problem is a category error because
it requires a halting decider to compute a value
other then what its actual input actually specifies.
False claim and not a proof.
Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their finite string inputs to an accept state
or reject state on the basis that this input finite
string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.
True background remark, but not a proof of anything.
This means that the ultimate measure of the behavior
that a finite string input D specifies is D correctly
simulated by simulating halt decider H.
Without H being specified, it means nothing.
Not every simulating decider H whatsoever is correct.
When an input D specifies a terminating procedure, then interpreting the
steps of D all the way, correctly following the semantics of whatever
language in which it is specified, all the way through to termination,
provides a "measure" of D's terminating behavior.
Non-terminating inputs cannot be "measured" by simulation, the
simulation of a nonterminating procedure always reports that there is
more of the behavior left to measure.
Your example DD is "measurable"; it halts, and a pure simulator
like your HHH1 confirms it.
The halting problem requires that halt deciders do what
no Turing machine deicider can do report on the semantic
property of non-inputs.
An assertion without proof; no proof to be seen anywhere.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.