Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.

>
How do you say that?
>
Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>

>
H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified
by this finite string input.

>
So, Definitions don't mean anything?
>

>
Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit.

 But the formal question can be translated into English.
 And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements doecument.
 "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do what they are programmed to do.

H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H.
No one ever tells it anything different than this.

The PROGRMMER making it needs to understand the question in which ever form it is presented.
 

>

I guess they don't to LIARS.
>
And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is just a LIE to you.
>

>
When it does this it does not end up with the behavior
of the directly executed D(D).

>
Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>

>
H must compute question that it is being asked.
Did not know that H does not understand English?

 So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out the door.
 So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the quesitn.
 

>
The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.

 Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of the actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just admitting to being a LIAR.
 There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy.
 

No the problem has always been that you are just too freaking stupid.
That is my canned reply every time you call me a liar.

 

>
How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad?
EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit.
>

 Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact same department as which I studied in. The department name is Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in the CS part of the program.
 I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real Turing Machines to handle moderate problems.

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