Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

Am Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:23:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/19/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-17 13:27:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answer
anything other than its input. Now you say that the the program at
15c3 is not a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed
consider it even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns.
But without that knowledge it is not possible to determine whether
DDD halts.

It maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3 to
non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation.

That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of the
problem specification.

decider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.

Not of any specification of any interesting problem.

Everyone here seems to think that they can stupidly ignore the fact that
an input calls its own decider and make pretend that this pathological
relationship does not exist.

The finite string does not reveal what is the effect of calling
whatever that address happens to contain.

A simulating termination analyzer proves this.

Irrelevant, as you just said it is not a part of the input.

It is not part of the input in that we already know that HHH halts and
we only need to find out whether or not DDD halts.

That is trivial since DDD only calls HHH.

The behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore
your "decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not
allowed.

HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self in its
own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on the effect
of the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.

Now you said that it is allowed to report on a non-input.
Earlier you have said that it is not allowed to report on a non-input.

Not the same. It cannot report on its actual self as a directly executed
process. I can report on a copy of itself that it being emulating in a
different process.

It has no need to report on itself, it can just do whatever it does.
All running or (completely) simulated copies of it behave the same.
It is not immediately simulating itself; its input is DDD.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.