Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma

On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:

int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.

>
Right.
>

>
When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>
>

>
Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will Halt.
>

>
If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*

>
But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>

>
No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).

>
The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if it is one.
>
You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>

>
When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
   That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns

>
What "False Assumption"?
>
You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>

>
*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*

 But DEFINITIONS DO.
 

>
To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>

 But that isn't the definition that we are using.
 NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.

NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
behavior that D specifies to H1.
You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
D between these two cases.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer