Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/15/24 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 3:51 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:51:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/15/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 03:41:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your
argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
The input to HHH is ALL of the memory that it would be accessed in a
correct simulation of DDD, which includes all the codd of HHH, and
thus, if you change HHH you get a different input.
If you want to try to claim the input is just the bytes of the
function DDD proper then you are just admitting that you are nothing
more than a lying idiot that doesn't understand the problem,

Turing machines only operate on finite strings they do not operate on
other Turing machines *dumbo*

>
That's right. But the finite string can be a description of a Turing
machine.

No that is wrong. The finite string must encode a Turing machine.

Same difference.
>

 Not at all. The huge mistake of all these years is that
people stupidly expected that HHH to report on the behavior
of its own executing Turing machine. The theory of computation
forbids that.

WHERE?
Another of you obvious lies, just like your diagonalization proof that you admitted was just nonsense.
You have shown you don't know Jack about computation theory, just as you don't know anything about how logic works, or what Truth is.
You have made up your own fantasy of what you think all of it means and just ignore the reality.
This is basically the proof of your insanity.

 

That way a Turing machine can say someting about another Turing
machine,

Not exactly. It can only report on the behavior that the input finite
string specifies.

Which is that other TM.
>

even simulate its complete execution. Or it can count something simple
like the number of states or the set of symbols that the described
Turing machine may write but not erase. But there are questions that no
Turing machine can answer from a description of another Turing machine.

All of the questions that a TM cannot answer are logical impossibilities

Not true. Some interesting questions are undecidable.
>

 It is a despicable lie that it even be called "undecidable".
It is like no one can "make up their mind" about the square
root of a dead rat.
 

Just shows you don't know the meaning of the words.
Your are just STUPID LIAR