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

On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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?"
>

>
THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.

>
How do you say that?
>
Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>

>
H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified
by this finite string input.

>
So, Definitions don't mean anything?
>

 Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit.

But the formal question can be translated into English.
And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements doecument.
"Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do what they are programmed to do. The PROGRMMER making it needs to understand the question in which ever form it is presented.

 

I guess they don't to LIARS.
>
And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is just a LIE to you.
>

>
When it does this it does not end up with the behavior
of the directly executed D(D).

>
Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>

 H must compute question that it is being asked.
Did not know that H does not understand English?

So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out the door.
So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the quesitn.

 The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.

Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of the actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just admitting to being a LIAR.
There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy.

 How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad?
EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit.
 

Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact same department as which I studied in. The department name is Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in the CS part of the program.
I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real Turing Machines to handle moderate problems.