Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:56:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v742dl$s48s$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:56:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13997779445f04dacae82f025877e637";
	logging-data="921884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184pnN/x/9evP3oETNgOie7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J8Z4ZUtuvfa68wkVLaoGNFkiwnM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <d8b0e6093be2a1874464d11a7c38720bac7917a8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4071

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.

>>> 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.
> 
>>> 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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer