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

On 6/22/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-21 19:45:37 +0000, olcott said:
 

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*

 A definiton is not wrong if it serves its intended purpose.

It purpose seems to be to lie about the halting problem and it
doe succeed at that. It is purpose is to tell the truth about
the halting problem then it fails.

You may say
that a definition is worng if the meaning it gives to the defined term
is not the meaning the author wants to give it or if the author uses the
term in a way that is not compatible to the definition. But the important
point is the author's intent. That you don't like a definition does not
make it wrong.

It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
this call DOES NOT RETURN.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
this call DOES RETURN.
I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.

 In your own opus you may present and use your own defintions. But the
scope of those definitions is the opus where they are presented. They
do not apply elsewhere.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer