Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply

On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:

>
>
_DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>

>
That is the only definitive way to determine the
actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>

>
It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>

>
Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>

  Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
 

If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
the question: Does D(D) halt?
H(D,D) is being asked the question:
Must your correct simulation of D be aborted to prevent
your own non-termination?
It answers that question correctly.
All undecidable decision problems make this same sort of mistake.
Incorrect yes/no questions have no correct yes/no answer.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer