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

On 6/13/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:21:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

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

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

>
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.

What else could "pass a program and input to a halt decider" mean?
 

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.

Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your
unverifiable false claims?

Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head does not
make me incorrect.

AKA "I made it up".

How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that they
are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook?

 

And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H
to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable.

When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer does not exist
this is called an undecidable question.
When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist this is a
whole new issue that no one ever noticed before.

AKA "the machine is wrong".
 

Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a
computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to
have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a
way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems
that were coming up in mathematics and logic.

If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect then your
expectations were incorrect.

Namely, that halting is decidable.
 

There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that
makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete
(the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be
proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth
Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs untrue (false
or not having a truth value).
Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an
method to compute the answer.

 

To ask a halt decider to compute the halting function on an input
you can't show it a page from a textbook. It cannot read your mind
to see what you expect.
H must compute the mapping from its finite string input by applying
finite string transformation rules to these input finite string to
derive the behavior that these finite strings specify.
For x86 input finite strings the transformation rules are anchored
in the semantics of the x86 language.
For Turing machine source-code input finite strings the transformation
rules are anchored the Turing Machine description language.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer