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

On 6/13/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:

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:

>

Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the
behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a
UTM.

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?

Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is
answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And
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.

So, H isn't a Halt Decider?
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 THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.

H answers the wrong question.

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.

Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>

When it does this it does not end up with the behavior of the directly
executed D(D).

Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.

H must compute question that it is being asked.

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.

No, but there programmer can, and that is who created H.

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

Right, which *IS* (by the definition of a Halt decider) the behavior of the directly executed machine the input represents.

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

Right, because that *IS* the definition of summig.
So, YOU trying to claim that H(D,D) can report on the "correct simulation by H" is EXACTLY like saying sum(3,4) can report on 5+6.

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

WHere do you get that form?
It seems, from the POOP up your ass.
I guess you are just admitting that you can't understand the English statement of the problem

 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.

H doesn't "believe" anything, it is just an antomaton and does what it is programmed to do. Since you were the programmer, I guess you are just admitting you do understand the definition of the problem you started 20 years ago.
So sorry you wasted so much time.

 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).

So? Who said there had to be?
After all, the full question is does there exist such a path. So, you just statement that you agree with the statement you have been trying to disprove for so long.
Doesn't that feel a bit silly to you?

 

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.
>