Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it

Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:

I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not mean
what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does not.
DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
 

In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological relationship
to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
doesn't exist?

It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide anything
and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
faulty, it's just a counterexample.

DDD does specify non-halting behavior to HHH and HHH must report on this
non-halting behavior that DDD specifies.

DDD halts.

No halt decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of any
computation that itself is contained within unless this is the same
behavior that its finite string input specifies.

Aha! The "unless" is new (you could've marked it.

It seems that no one here has that degree of expertise. That they know
that they don't understand these things and still say that I am wrong is
dishonest.

Crackpots are usually too incompetent to recognise their own incompetence.

Regarding the title: the actual behaviour of the description of a machine
is, well, the behaviour of that machine.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.