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

On 6/13/24 9:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:

>

So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D
correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent
statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the
input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you
have been LYING every time you imply that it is.

>

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.

The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means.

>

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

>

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 [it] into the behavior that it
specifies using finite string transformation rules.
*H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that*

It has a *specification* it must fulfill.
>

 The specification is only in your own mind and cannot be encoded
as a program/input pair.
 

Specifications don't need to be encoded as the program/input pair.
I guess you just don't understand what a program is.