Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:17:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2428db89c243a7defedbf9b7588991cd00b5d7c3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
	<v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
	<58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
	<v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
	<1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
	<v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
	<5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
	<v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
	<60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
	<v725p4$hlvg$2@dont-email.me> <v72n49$kfho$1@dont-email.me>
	<v739gj$mjis$18@dont-email.me>
	<d8b0e6093be2a1874464d11a7c38720bac7917a8@i2pn2.org>
	<v742dl$s48s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:17:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3460549"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4268
Lines: 58

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:56:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/15/2024 3:51 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:51:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>> Same difference.
> Not at all. The huge mistake of all these years is that people stupidly
> expected that HHH to report on the behavior of its own executing Turing
> machine. The theory of computation forbids that.
Encoding = description.
HHH isn't executed by anything. It simply reports on a string that
represents itself.

>>>> That way a Turing machine can say someting about another Turing
>>>> machine,
>>> Not exactly. It can only report on the behavior that the input finite
>>> string specifies.
>> Which is that other TM.
Do you agree?

>>>> even simulate its complete execution. Or it can count something
>>>> simple like the number of states or the set of symbols that the
>>>> described Turing machine may write but not erase. But there are
>>>> questions that no Turing machine can answer from a description of
>>>> another Turing machine.
>>> All of the questions that a TM cannot answer are logical
>>> impossibilities
>> Not true. Some interesting questions are undecidable.
> It is a despicable lie that it even be called "undecidable". It is like
> no one can "make up their mind" about the square root of a dead rat.
You may dislike the term; it means there is no program that gives
the answer for every input.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.