Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:

>
Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real rebuttal for what others have said.
>

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
  <copy-paste response>
>

>
>
In other words, you have no rebuttal.

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
*UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
*THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>
<copy-paste response>
>
>

>
Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a solution to the halting problem

 *I never said that*

Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:
On 3/8/2025 10:49 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 3/8/2025 9:36 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>> The halting problem requires that the halting function is mapped:
 >>>>
 >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
 >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
 >>>>
 >>>> So by this specification, (<X>,Y) specifies the behavior of X(Y)
 >>>> when executed directly.
 >>>>
 >>>> Any algorithm that does not compute this mapping is not a solution
 >>>> to the halting problem.
 >>>
 >>> Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real
 >>> rebuttal for what others have said.
 >>>
 >>
 >> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
 >>
 >>   <copy-paste response>
 >>
 >
 >
 > In other words, you have no rebuttal.  A copy-paste response is worse
 > than no rebuttal at all.
 >
 >>> Unless you respond to this thread, I'll take your lack of response
 >>> to mean that you accept that the above specification is required to
 >>> be a solution to the halting problem.
 >
 > And as such, by the above, your less-than-a-rebuttal means you accept
 > that a solution to the halting problem is required to perform the
 > following mapping:
 >
 > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
 > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
 >

I said that fully understanding my first
step is required to understand any other
aspects such as the details of application
to the halting problem.

There *is* no application if it doesn't meet the requirements.

 You insist on me teaching you algebra
before you learn arithmetic.

No, you insist on agreeing on an answer before agreeing on a question.
You're basically insisting that we agree that there's a black cat in your kitchen when we want to know if there's a white dog in your living room.
It doesn't matter what your HHH is mapping if it doesn't meet the requirements to be a solution to the halting problem.