Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable

On 5/7/2025 5:05 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/7/2025 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:47 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/7/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 20:35, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 19:31, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

>
I already know that the contradictory part of the
counter-example input has always been unreachable code.

>
If the code is unreachable, it can't be part of a working program, so simply remove it.

>
It is unreachable by the Halting Problem counter-example
input D when correctly simulated by the simulating
termination analyzer H that it has been defined to thwart.

>
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executed program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
>

>
If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
of instructions would be a faithful simulation.

>
>
The sequence executed by HHH1, as you are on record as admitting is correct:
>

>
What exact sequence of the following machine addresses
of DD emulated by HHH

 Which it does incorrectly as you have admitted on the record:
 

Liar
Yet you cannot show how to do it correctly
because you know that you are lying about it doing
it incorrectly or you are clueless about these things.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer