Sujet : Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 22. Jun 2024, 00:44:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v54vp8$3cgv7$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>
Right.
>
>
When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>
>
>
Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will Halt.
>
>
If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>
But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>
>
No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>
The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if it is one.
>
You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>
>
When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
What "False Assumption"?
You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
That it is correct in every other case has lead you
astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
fact that they do differ.
To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…