Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---Olcott is a liar!

On 11/11/24 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:

ALL DECIDERS MUST COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM THEIR FINITE STRING
INPUTS TO THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.
 DDD emulated by HHH SPECIFIES THAT HHH MUST emulate itself
emulating DDD.
 DDD emulated by HHH1 SPECIFIES THAT HHH1 MUST NOT emulate
itself emulating DDD.
 If you say these are the same you are a (condemned to actual Hell)
damned liar.
 

No, a decider, to be correct, must compute the mapping defined by the function it is to compute.
That function defines the "actual behavior" that the input specifies.
For the "Halting Function", that is the behavior of the program the input represents/describes.
Which is also the behavior of the COMPLETE and correct emulation of that.
If the "emulation" that the decider does (if it even emulates at all) doesn't match that, it is the deciders problem.
Your criteria of "DDD emualate by HHH" isn't a valid criteria, and your insitance on it just proves your stupidity.
Sorry, but that is the facts, and you are just proving your ignorance.
Can you actually show any reputable site that backs your claims?
My guess is not, because they don't match the actual theory, and it is likely just stuff you made up yourself, as most of your bad ideas have been.
YOUR repeated lying will give you the results that you try to project onto others. That seemes to be your nature, just like your buddy Trump.
I am not saying what you are saying is the same, just that neither is the definition of what they are supposed to do, just that HHH1, since it doesn't abort, reaches the same results as the definition, while HHH since it does, fails to do that.
Maybe you are going to spend your eternity going over these facts again and again until you finally learn what truth means. Maybe you will spend the time trying to form that infinite proof you claim can exist.