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

On 7/15/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Which is what a description is!!!
(DUMMY)

 

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 the behavior of the machine it specifies/represents/describes.

 

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 thus do not place an limits on computation
any more than the fact that a CAD system cannot correctly
draw square circles is a limit on computation. These two
computer science professors agree.

Nope, YOUR LOGIC is based on logical imposibilities.
YOU are just showing yourselfg to be too stupid to understand the basics.
YOU have ADMITTED to LYING, and proved that you are totally ignorant of the field, and as to how even basic logic works.

 [3] E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
 [4] Bill Stoddart. The Halting Paradox
20 December 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]