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

On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

 

Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
will Halt.

 

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.

 

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.
>

*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*

>
But DEFINITIONS DO.

 

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.

If H really is a decider, it returns.
 

But that isn't the definition that we are using.

 

NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because I am the
sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one ever thought
ALL-THE-WAY through before.

Unlikely.
Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
 

The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified fact
that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the behavior
that D specifies to H1.

But D is the same in either case?!
 

You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of D
between these two cases.

The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
 

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
int main()
{
   H0(DDD);
   H1(DDD);
}
DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer