Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review

On 6/3/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 9:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-03 12:20:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>

PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been posted here.
PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in various traces.
i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both these
results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>
You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>
That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!

>
He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result for
H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone continues to
discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.
>

>
Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
accept or reject state.

>
That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
If the computed mapping differs from the specified one the
decider does not solve the problem.
>

 int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6.

Because 5 and 6 are not what 2 and 3 represent

 DD correctly simulated by HH does have provably
different behavior than DD(DD) so HH is is not
allowed to report on the behavior of DD(DD).
 

Nope, it MUST report on the behavior of DD(DD) as that is what its input SPECIFIED.
The machine described by DD *IS* DD
The input to that machine, described by DD *IS* DD
So, the input DD,DD speciefies DD(DD), just like the 2,3 to sum specifies 2 + 3.