Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩

On 5/27/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/27/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/27/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:

 

I totally do. Can you please write down the
"completely specified state transition/tape operation table."
of this specific (thus uniquely identifiable) machine I would
really like to see it.
>

>
But it was proven that no such machine exists!
>
Remember, the proof starts with the hypothetical that such a machine exists. Such a machine WOULD HAVE a completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
>

>
That is not what you said.
 >>>>> There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100%
 >>>>> completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
>
"a 100% completely specified state transition/tape operation table"
of a non-existent machine.

>
Right, by presuming that you have a Turing Machine, you have a completly specified state transition/tape operation table.
>
You may not KNOW what that table is if you don't know what the exact machine is, but you know it exists.
>
>

  >>> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
 If you can't notice that you are contradicting yourself
it seems that no further progress can be made with you.
 

Nope. You just don't understand how a proof by contradiction works, do you.
We begin by assuming that such a machine exists. If such a machine exsited, it would have a full specified state transition/tape operation table.
The proof them move on, building another machine based on that presumed table, with precisely specified methods.
Then, by the principles of Turing Machines, we can show, based on the few limitations of what Turing Machine has specified, what the results of running that machine will be, even without knowing the details of that machine, just knowing that such a specification exists.
And thus, we can show that the given hypothetical H couldn't have meet its specification, because out of the limited number of classes of final behaviors, we can show that it had to be wrong, or just not exist.
Of course, since you don't understand about specifications, this may seem like magic to you, but it works.
So, if you don't have an infinite set of these 100% specified state transistion/tape operation tables, you can't do YOUR proof.
And if you don't have those tables, you can not have any of your embedded_H's "simulate" their inputs, as that is what specifies what the simulation does.
So, I guess YOU have a bigger contradiction.