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

On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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:

>
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
>

 I gave you the source-code.

So?
Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said that didn't apply.
It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want.
Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as it does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that D(D) will not return?
You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the same error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that "Correct" any more, as that would be a LIE.

 

>

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?
>

 Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head
does not make me incorrect.

I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it must be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an accepted truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE.
That's par for the course.
That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for claiming it.

 How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that
they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook?

They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out.
Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their instuctions given to them.
You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs do you.

 

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.
>

 No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed.

But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own unsubstantiated claims based on wrong defintions.

 

>

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.
>

 When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer
does not exist this is called an undecidable question.

Except the mapping DOES exist.
For D0 built on H0 and D1 built on H1
If H0(D0,D0) returns 0, then the mapping of Halts(D0,D0) is True, since D0(D0) will call H0(D0,D0) and get the 0 answer back and it will halt.
If H1(D1,D1) returns 1, then the mapping of Halts(D1,D1) is False, since D1(D1) will call H1(D1,D1) and get the 1 answer back and go into an infinite loop.
Thus, for every specific H that you can make, it will fall into one of those two classes (or fail to be a proper decider and fail earlier) there *IS* a correcct answer, it just isn't the one that that paticular H gives for that particular D.

 When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist
this is a whole new issue that no one ever noticed before.

But it does, you just get confused as you keep changing the question in your argument, but that just seems to be how your logic tends to work (or better said, not work).

 

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.
>

 If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect
then your expectations were incorrect.

But it can. Remember, H is DEFINED first, then D, and then there is a correct answer, just not the one that THAT H gave.

 

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).
>

 That you are having a hard time understanding this brand new
material is reasonable. The biggest problem with this is that
you are so sure that I must be incorrect that you hardly pay
any attention to what I say.

What "brand new material". You are just making wild claims that you admit you can't back up with accepted truths, so they are just not part of the Computation Theory formal logic system.
Just like your father, you have been cast out of the presence of the Truth you want to have, and into your world of LIES.

 

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.

>

>