Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:

Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
...

It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
business of H.

>
LOL
>

>
There are no finite string transformations from the input
to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
is irrelevant.
>

>
Of course there is.
>
That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>

>
Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
though the cracks of vagueness.
>
Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
DDD terminates normally.

>
WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>
The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>

>
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
*This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
for halt decider H.

>
Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the input when directly run.
>

>
*If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
*of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>

>
NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it.
>

>
There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D)
can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior
that you expect.

>
So?
>
There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID.
>
That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the Halting Function is just uncomputable.
>

>
I am not saying there is no mapping from the question
to the correct answer.
>
I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION.
H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
>

 So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider.
 

No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.

Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the machine their input describes, in this case D(D).
 

This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down
version for people that do not really understand these things.

So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, and what problem you have been working on.
 

All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid
to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means.

That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives to lie about things.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer