Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:12:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8769acfa8698ccd8dde9203c00d75862a6d3f4a1@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>
 <2428db89c243a7defedbf9b7588991cd00b5d7c3@i2pn2.org>
 <v75tqk$19j7l$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 01:12:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3536827"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v75tqk$19j7l$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5749
Lines: 98

On 7/16/24 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2024 3:17 AM, joes wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> // HHH is not allowed to report on this DDD
> int main() { DDD(); } invokes HHH(DDD);


WHY NOT?

Just because it gets the answers wrong.

I guess you are just admitting that you have been a liar for years.

After all, you used to say that H was a partial halt decider, and the 
ONLY program that it needed to be correct about was the pathological one.

If you say now, that it isn't allowed to look at it, then I guess you 
are just admitting you lied about what your deciders were supposed to be 
doing.

> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> The term "undecidable input" incorrectly cites the decider
> as the source of the issue instead of rejecting incorrect input.

But their is nothing incorrect about the input (at least not once you 
let it include all of the code of HHH in it(

> 
> The problem is that no program gives the answer
> whether a self-contradictory input is true or false
> because the correct answer is neither. It isn't
> that the decider "couldn't make up ts mind" it is
> that the input was invalid.
> 

So, that doesn't make it an illegal input, just one that makes the 
problem uncomputable.

Since you don't seem to understand the nature of the problem, it seems 
that you are unsuited for talking about it.