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

On 6/13/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
The INPUT must tell the program what the question is.
What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS
mean to you in your own words?
>

>
Of course not.
>
Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were programmed to do on the data.
>

>
Simplistic.
H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior
that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D).
They only told it about D correctly simulated by H.

>
No, it does not.
>
To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior.
>

The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine
the behavior of D(D).

>
So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out,
>
The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H can use itself.
>

>
I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines
the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know
that I am correct.

>
And why do I need to, because that isn't the question.
>
I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu.
>

>
H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show
otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning.
>

>
But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input to H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D).
>
Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program can use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then do the opposite.
>
This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, because the power of the computation system grows faster than the ability to decide on the computation.

 See my prior reply
 

If you mean the one in this thread about an hour or so ago, that doesn't actualy prove your goal that H can be a correct Halt Decider, just that you don't understand what that means.