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

On 2024-07-20 14:54:54 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-19 14:43:53 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/19/2024 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 18:26:12 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/16/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 13:51:14 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 That you agree does not mean that it is wrong.
 

 Your ignorance that a Turing machine cannot take its own
executing self as an input is no rebuttal what-so-ever.

 You should not assume that everyone is as stupid as you.
 

 That all rebuttals to my work have one fatal flaw or
another is beyond the comprehension of my reviewers
provides zero evidence that these rebuttals are not flawed.

 You can claim that the indications of flaws of your "work" are flawed
but that does not remove the indicated flaws from your work.
 

 Every rebuttal of my work denies a tautology
proving that the rebuttal is incorrect because
all tautologies are necessarily true.
 int main()
{
   DDD();
}
 Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
 *The above is a Tautology*

No, it is not. The code of DDD is not included so it it is not even
determinable, let alone a tautology, what HHH(DDD) can or should do.
--
Mikko