Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric

On 5/14/2025 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 17:21, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
instead of the actual behavior that the finite
string of DD specifies:

>
Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want to know about.

>
Why?
>
DDD doesn't do anything interesting.
>
If it were a universal halt decider we'd have a reason to care, because its very existence would overturn pretty much the whole of computability theory and enable us to clean up many of the unsolved problems of mathematics.
>

>
Sure and we could achieve the same thing by
simply hard-coding the actual all-knowing
mind of God into a formal system.

 Except that we can't. And that just shows you don't understand the nature of the problem.
 

It is nuts to propose the idea of a universal
halt decider when we know that there are some
things that can only be decided by an infinite
computation.

>
The question is not about any universal halt
decider that must be literally all knowing.
>
It has always actually only been about things
that could prevent consistently determining
the halt status of conventional programs.

 Right, but since D halts, H(D) returning 0 is just wrong.
 

HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting
according the the exact meaning of these words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer