Re: Hypothetical IMpossibilities -- I reread this again more carefully

On 7/21/24 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/21/2024 9:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:34:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/21/2024 9:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:08:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/21/2024 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/21/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:

>

(b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
computation that itself is contained within. Deciders only take finite
string inputs. They do not take executing processes as inputs. Thus
HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of this int main() {
DDD(); }.

That IS exactly the input.

The behavior of emulated DDD after it has been aborted changes the
behavior of the directly existed DDD.

A deterministic program can't change. It was always going to be aborted.
>

 None-the-less we can examine the exhaustively complete set
of every HHH/DDD pair that can possibly exist and find that
all of the HHH instances that never abort their simulation
of DDD never stop running.

But since DDD needs to be given as a full progran, it means that every input DDD is DIFFERENT so all you have shown is that the aborted simulations of the DDD that call

 

When the second call of what would otherwise be infinite recursion is
required to be aborted to prevent the infinite execution of the first
call this proves that HHH(DDD)==0 is correct even though the directly
executed DDD() halts.

The second call stops simulating just like all others.

And thus all the copies of this HHH will return and thus ALL copies of that DDD will halt.
And you are shown to be a stupid liar. The incessant repeating the error makes it no longer eligible to be an honest mistake, but just a pathological lie based on a reckless disregard for the truth.
Sorry, you are just burying your ideas under your pile of lies showing how stupid they all are.

>

Therefore we map the finite string input to HHH(DDD) to the behavior
that it species on the basis of DDD correctly emulated by any pure
function HHH that can possibly exist.

The basis is the direct behaviour.

Unless you think the idea of UTMs is wrong-headed nonsense the behavior
of DDD correctly emulated by HHH determines the actual behavior
specified by the input to HHH(DDD).

HHH is not an UTM.
>