Sujet : Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 13. Jul 2025, 16:18:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1050in9$2qkok$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/13/2025 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-12 14:26:09 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/12/2025 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-11 15:25:29 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/11/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:35:11 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/10/2025 5:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 09.jul.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:>
All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their actual inputs. This entails that they never
compute any mapping from non-inputs.
>
At least one thing you understand.
>
>
*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
*The Linz proof does not understand this*
>
Proofs don't understand. They prove.
>
It fails to prove undecidability when the decider
correctly excludes directly executed Turing machines
from its domain.
>
That does not change the last sentence of the proof. Therefore the
proof proves what it would prove anyway.
>
It completely invalidates the proof.
No, it does not. The proof reamins as it was. A proof is valid if there
is no error in the proof. Nothing else is relevant.
There are errors that you do not understand.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…