Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review

On 6/3/2024 9:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-03 12:20:01 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>

PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been posted here.
PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in various traces.
i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both these
results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>
You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>
That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!

>
He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result for
H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone continues to
discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.
>

>
Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
accept or reject state.

 That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
If the computed mapping differs from the specified one the
decider does not solve the problem.
 

int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6.
DD correctly simulated by HH does have provably
different behavior than DD(DD) so HH is is not
allowed to report on the behavior of DD(DD).
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer