Re: Uncomputable Natural Numbers

On Sep 9, 2:42 am, reaste...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
If the input is finite then there IS a blank eventually,
so the TM CAN eventually get there

We can't assume this.

We can, however,PROVE it, IF we have a definition of "finite".
Most people KNOW the definition of "finite" and so they ARE NOT
STUPID
enough to argue against this, as you are.


My proof shows why we can't assume this.

No, it doesn't, and in the 2nd place, you would not know
a proof if one walked up to you and kissed you.


This is a simple proof.

No, this is bull***.

The TM reads the first position, the second
position, the third, the fourth, etc.

Your problem here is that you DON'T KNOW what "etc." means.
"etc." means that the TM KEEPS READING EVERY position.
It NEVER stops. It KEEPS ON GOING in EXACTLY this way.


The TM will never count to infinity one
position at a time

That is true, but that also doesn't matter, since THE INPUT IS FINITE.

and it will never read
every finite position on the tape no matter
how long we wait.

So *FUCKING* WHA?? The input IS FINITE!
We DON'T NEED to Read EVERY position on the tape!
We ONLY need to read the FINITE input!!

There will always be
an infinite number of unread positions.

That's right, but SINCE THE INPUT IS FINITE, all those
unread positions ARE JUST IRRELEVANT, since they are all
AFTER THE END of the FINITE input!


We can't assume it will "get there" eventually.

Of course we can, AND IT DOES.

If the input IS FINITE then the first blank, i.e., THE END of the
input,
occurs in the nth cell. So if the TM reads 1 cell per second, IT CAN
AND DOES
get there AT THE nth SECOND.

NO MATTER HOW BIG n is, this IS a proof.
.

Quantcast