XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 2:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-22 12:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/22/2025 12:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/22/2025 10:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore   
   >>>>>>>>> whatever I say.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been   
   >>>>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they   
   >>>>>>>> deserve.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details   
   >>>>>>>> ignored.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings   
   >>>>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing   
   >>>>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the   
   >>>>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The halting problem positively does not propose anything   
   >>>>>> like that, which would be gapingly wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It only seems that way because you are unable to   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, it doesn't only seem that way. Thanks for playing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> provide the actual mapping that the actual input   
   >>>>> to HHH(DD) specifies when DD is simulated by HHH   
   >>>>> according to the semantics of the C language,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> DD is a "finite string input" which specifies a behavior that is   
   >>>> independent of what simulates it,   
   >>>   
   >>> That is stupidly incorrect.   
   >>> That DD calls HHH(DD) (its own simulator) IS PART OF   
   >>> THE BEHAVIOR THAT THE INPUT TO HHH(DD) SPECIFIES.   
   >>   
   >> In no way am I saying that DD is not built on HHH, and   
   >> does not have a behavior dependent on that of HHH.   
   >> Why would I ever say that?   
   >>   
   >> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,   
   >> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >   
   > I think part of the problem here is that Olcott doesn't grasp that the   
   > "finite string input" DD *must* include as a substring the entire   
   > description of HHH.   
   >   
   > André   
   >   
      
   That includes that HHH(DD) keeps simulating yet   
   another instance of itself and DD forever and ever   
   until it fully understands that no simulated DD   
   can possibly ever reach its own final halt state.   
      
   That five LLM systems immediately understood this   
   and figured it all out on their own seems strong   
   evidence that you are being disingenuous with me   
   right now.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)