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

On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does.
>

 The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D).
 You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because
you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct.
 

Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do.
You CAN'T be correct, as you admit you aren't working on the problem that you say yoy are, because you, as the programmer, has decided that you don't need to actually follow the requirements, which just makes everything you do WRONG.
You are about a century late for your argument.
Part of the genesis of the Halting Problem was the concept of a Universal Problem Solver Program (sort of like a Universal Turing Machine, only broader in scope), that, if it could be made, could be given the desccription of ANY problem, and it would crunch on it, and after a finite amount of time, would give the answer.
Even if we couldn't actually figure out the program, but could only just prove that it could exist, and even if it might take a million years for it to answer a question, the fact that such a program could exist would mean a lot to mathematics. (Showing things like Completeness).
This was an idea of a grand unification of problem spaces.
Then, Turing showed that there existed a fundamental problem, that of algorithm halting, that he could show could NOT be computed, and thus the grand Universal Problem Solver could NOT be written, and then out of this, many of the actual limitations of what could be known and done were established.