Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review

On 3/06/24 14:20, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>

PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been posted here.
PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in various traces.
i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged both these
results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>
You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>
That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!

>
He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result for
H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone continues to
discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim.
>

 Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
accept or reject state. The correct emulation of the machine code input
to H(DD,DD) requires DD emulated by HH to emulate each x86 instruction
of the x86 machine code of DD correctly and in the correct order.
 *The input to HH(DD,DD) specifies non-halting behavior*

The input to HH(DD,DD) is DD,DD. DD,DD is a representation of DD(DD). A halting decider returns 1 if its input is a representation of a program call which halt, and 0 if its input is a representation of a program call which doesn't halt. DD,DD is a representation of a program call which halts, so it's supposed to be mapped to 1.
I think Olcott has kill-filed me, so he only responds when someone else quotes it. I don't know why it's me specifically and not any of the other people he keeps threatening to stop talking to (like Richard).