Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway?

On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps*

>
DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but that DD itself will halt).
>

>
That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not)
get you condemned to Hell.
>

>
What is strawman about it?
>
I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and make lies about.

>
You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question.
I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it.
>

>
I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth,
>

>
Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD)

 Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, which IS about the direct execution of DD

Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).
When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
*HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*
When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
is precisely isomorphic to the question:
Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of
how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored.
It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation
to ignore this.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer