Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, that is a UTM.
>

>
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.

>
Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
>

>
H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.

>
Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented by its input.
>

 *H is not even being asked that question*

So, H ian't a Halt Decider?
Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"

H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string
inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules.

Nope, Where do you get that from?
You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is correct.

 H is not answering the question that is in your head.
H is answering the question that it is being asked.
 

So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time about working on the halting problem.
There goes you claim to have never lied.