Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Ignoramus !!!

On 4/28/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-16 17:36:31 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote:

sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO GET AWAY FOR
CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT
PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.

>
Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the
question. The question is whether a universal termination analyser
can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the proof
you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, not least
because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with you is met
with contempt and scorn.
The proof stands.
>

*corresponding output to the input*
>
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing else besides the
freaking input. Must compute whatever mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM
THIS INPUT.

 
A halt decider is is not allowed to compute "whatever" mapping. It is
required to compute one specific mapping: to "no" if the computation
described by the input can be continesd forever without halting, to
"no" otherwise.
 

It must do this by applying the finite string transformation rules
specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
This DOES NOT DERIVE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD. It DOES
DERIVE DD EMULATED BY HHH AND ALSO DERIVES THE RECURSIVE EMULATION OF
HHH EMULATING ITSELF EMULATING DD.