Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations

Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:

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(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.

And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?

that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of
the machine represented by its input.

*H is not even being asked that question*

Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.

Why would we ask a machine "What is your own result?"?

Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does
the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"

THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.

H answers the wrong question.

It answers "I give this result, because I say so". The opposite were
equally valid.

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.

Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.

H must compute question that it is being asked.

If H doesn't, it is not what we are looking for.

Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".

Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption that
they do is ridiculously false.

Of course not. Ridiculous is your assumption that I wasn't talking about
its specification.

H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive the
behavior that it must report on.

The behaviour of D(D) itself doesn't change by whatever H does.

int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.

Yes, and sum {return x*y} is a faulty implementation. Why would I expect
otherwise?

H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H EVEN
IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.

It must provide the halt status, whether simulated by anything or not.
A simulation that changes it is called wrong.

You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of
D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.

Then I don't care about H. I want my H to report on D(D).

There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).

Which is why a halt decider is impossible.

The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT
MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.

Then H is not the halt decider you are looking for.

The H that violates the specification is not the true H.

--
joes