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

Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:08:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/13/2024 9:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/13/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

 

*H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that*

Indeed, it must compute and it must be right.

It has a *specification* it must fulfill.

The specification is "calculate whether a particular program with a
particular input halts".

Yes that <is> what the textbooks say, none-the-less halt deciders really
cannot read textbooks. Instead they go by the behavior that their input
specifies.

And their programming. And we can change which machine/program we are
looking at, if we've got one that isn't up to spec.
 

All halt deciders compute the mapping from their inputs...

All Turing machines do.
 

When we actually compute the mapping from the x86 machine language
finite string input to H(D,D) using the finite string transformation
rules specified by the semantics of the x86 programming language this
DOES NOT MAP TO THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).

Yes, which is why H is wrong.
 

When I ask anyone to show the detailed steps of the mapping from the
machine language finite string of D to the behavior of D(D) *THEY CHANGE
THE SUBJECT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT I AM CORRECT*

That mapping is provided by a simulator/UTM. You even use one yourself!
No need to guess the wrong answer.