Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

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

On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:

Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
...

It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
business of H.

>
LOL
>

>
There are no finite string transformations from the input
to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
is irrelevant.
>

>
Of course there is.
>
That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>

>
Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
though the cracks of vagueness.
>
Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
DDD terminates normally.

>
WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>
The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>

>
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
*This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
for halt decider H.

>
Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the input when directly run.
>

>
*If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
*of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>

>
NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it.
>

>
There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D)
can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior
that you expect.

>
So?
>
There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID.
>
That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the Halting Function is just uncomputable.
>

>
I am not saying there is no mapping from the question
to the correct answer.
>
I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION.
H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
>

>
So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider.
>

 No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.

How is it a H

 

Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the machine their input describes, in this case D(D).
>

 This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down
version for people that do not really understand these things.

Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your unverifiable false claims?
You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE.

 

So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, and what problem you have been working on.
>

 All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid
to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means.
 

And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable.
Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems that were coming up in mathematics and logic.
There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs unture (false or not having a truth value).
Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an method to compute the answer.

That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives to lie about things.