Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2

On 6/16/2024 1:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/16/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/16/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/16/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/16/2024 10:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/16/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:44:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/16/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

Whenever a decider is run it answers the question it is made to answer.

Not necessarily. Just because everyone falsely assumes that D correctly
simulated by H must have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D)
does not make this false assumption true.

>

You still need to explain how you can call a simulation that differs from
the behaviour of its input "correct".

>
Indeed, you do.
>

I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
everyone's heads.

>
Nonsense!  How about, instead of "proving", actually explaining?  If a
simulation differs from its original, it's not a simulation; it's just a
random program.
>

When I ask what your C programming skill level is, this *is not* a
rhetorical question.

>
The question has nothing to do with C programming.
>

>
typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
int H(ptr P, ptr I);
>
int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
Unless I make every single detail 100% explicit false
assumptions always slip though the cracks. The ONLY way
to make EVERY SINGLE DETAIL 100% EXPLICIT is the x86
programming language.
>
There cannot possibly be any H that correctly emulates
the x86 machine code of D according to the semantics
of the x86 programming language such that the emulated
D ever reaches its own emulated final state at machine
address [00001f58].
>

>
Which is just a strawman, as the requirement on H is NOT to answer about "D correctly simulated by H" but about "the program represented by the input directly executed", or equivalently, simulated by an actual UTM, which is a simulator that NEVER stops until it reaches a final state.
>

>
This is simply over-your-head.
I am very glad of that because the alternative would
possibly condemn your soul to Hell.

 Whats over my head? That the definition of a Halt Decider beihg that it decides on the behavior of the program represented by the input halting when run?
 

void DD0()
{
   HH0(DD0);
}
int main()
{
   HH0(DD0);
}
That the machine language finite string input DD0
to any simulating halt decider HH0(DD0) cannot
possibly even ask about the behavior of DD0().
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer