Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES

On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>
It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>

>
Why? I don't claim it can.

>
When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input
to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and
and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you
have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog.

>
No, by asking a Red Herring question,

>
*In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE*

>
No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why?
>

>
In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not
being asked about the behavior of D(D).

>
Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the Halting Problem.
>

 You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that
deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what
you think that this input should mean.
 

And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD.
IF H(D,D) doesn't mean the behavior of D(D), then you built D wrong, as its requirements stated it was to use the decider to decide on this input programs behavior for this input.
So, it means the behavior of D(D) or you are a LIAR and nothing you have said means anything

>
Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption
that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified?

>
I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider.
>
>
I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years.
>
I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting the definition of a Halt Decider.
>

>

You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that
question will increase your understanding or you already know
that the answer to that question proves that I am correct.

>
No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has NOTHING to do with the problem,

>
It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete
instance of the problem.

>
Nope, You just admitted it doesn't.
>
Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program described by the input.

 I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn
or ignorant to comprehend this.

YOU CAN'T "PROVE" a defintion to means something it doesn't mean
That is just admitting to trying to lie.
You are just proving you don't understand the basics of logic,

 

By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H to decide on D(D).
>

 Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even
understand how it could be possible does not change you
religious conviction that I must be wrong.

And thus you are just admitting that you have been lying, since you said that D was built exactly to the Linz template.
How do you explain it otherwise?

 

If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it.
>

 When I correct false assumptions that others have had
about the halting problem that does not mean that I am
not working on the halting problem.

You have not "corrected a false assumption", you have just admitted to LYING about following requirements.
It seems the only "False Assumption" was that we could beleive anything you asaid.

 When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical
that does not mean that they were not working on the shape
of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth.