Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/23/2025 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-22 18:46:10 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/22/2025 1:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 22/05/2025 19:16, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

In other words you are too scatterbrained to keep
focused on a single point until closure is achieved.

>
Closure happened in 1936.
>

>
*CLOSURE ON THIS POINT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED*
>
When you try to define an input D to simulating termination
analyzer H that actually does the opposite of whatever value
that H returns you find that this
KEY ELEMENT OF THE CONVENTIONAL HALTING
PROBLEM PROOFS CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.

 Unless H is a counter-example to the Church-Turing thesis it
is possible to construct such D and prove that H is not a
halting decider.
 

When you do that within the abstraction of Turing Machines
people get confused and conflate the computation that
the halt decider is contained within as its own input.
*This mistake is more obvious when it is made concrete*
int main()
{
   DD(); // How does the HHH that DD calls report
}       // on the behavior of its caller?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer