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

On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting Problem.
So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares about.

 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.

Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the "Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT "Correct x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in this case is to return 0.

 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.
 

But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever,  but it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.