H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)

On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>
It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>

>
Why? I don't claim it can.
>

>
That means that H cannot even be asked the question:
"Does D halt on its input?"

 WHy not? After all, H does what it does, the PERSON we ask is the programmer.
 

*When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other*
There is no way to encode any H such that it can be asked:
Does D(D) halt?
You must see this from the POV of H or you won't get it.
H cannot read your theory of computation textbooks, it
only knows what it directly sees, its actual input.
If there is no possible way for H to transform its input
into the behavior of D(D) then H cannot be asked about
the behavior of D(D).
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer