Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred

On 8/16/24 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 1:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 11:47 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:

>

Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH can reach the "return"
instruction of DDD it is construed that this instance of DDD never
halts.

But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited
emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider

Not at all. never has.

Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change the
simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody cares
about HHH aborting a pure simulator.

>

HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation would
be.

The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH does

NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION

Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH.

>
Prediction of behavior of unlimited emulation
means prediction of behavior that never aborts.
>

>
Right, but the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that says non-halting will reach a final state.
>

>
I think that you are just twisting my words again.
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
The unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running.
>
>

>
IF you are going to change an define that *THE* HHH is just a program that does unlimited emulation, than it fails to give the answer that the input is non-halting.
>

 HHH correctly predicts...
HHH correctly predicts...
HHH correctly predicts...
HHH correctly predicts...
HHH correctly predicts...
 I will get the another piece of this sentence
after you fully understand this first piece.
 

How can HHH correctly predict something that won't happen?
If we do an unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that you have that aborts and returns, that unlimited emulation will reach a final state, and thus the correct prediction is to halt.
To claim that it corectly predicts about an input that isn't the input it was actually give is just a lie.
Remember, Halting is about programs, and programs include ALL the code they use, so the input DDD include ALL the code of the HHH that it calls.
Since the HHH that aborts was given a DDD that calls the HHH that aborts, it is not proper for it to answer about a DIFFERENT DDD that calls the HHH that does an unlimited emulation of it.
You are just trying to assert that LYING is valid logic, sorry, that is juat a LIE and not valid logic.
You are just proving you fail at the basic test of fundamental knowledge of the field.