Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:27:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answer
anything other than its input. Now you say that the the program at
15c3 is not a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed
consider it even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns. But
without that knowledge it is not possible to determine whether DDD
halts.
>

It maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3 to
non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation.

That string is meaningless outside of the execution environment of HHH,
specifically the simulation of DDD it is doing. It does not encode
anything, DDD does not have access to that address. That string
doesn't call anything, the program in HHH's memory space does.
Ceterum censeo that HHH halts.

That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of the
problem specification.

decider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.

The finite string does not reveal what is the effect of calling
whatever that address happens to contain.

A simulating termination analyzer proves this.
 

The behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore your
"decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not allowed.

HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self in its
own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on the effect of
the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.

HHH must report on itself if its input calls it.
HHH does not directly simulate itself, it just executes.
It reports on DDD by simulating it.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.