Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details

On 6/3/24 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 3:01 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 03 Jun 2024 14:00:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/3/2024 10:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-03 12:36:00 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/3/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-02 13:21:56 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/2/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-01 19:26:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/1/2024 1:52 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 09:37:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/1/2024 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-31 15:35:18 +0000, olcott said:

>

I am so sure that I must be right that I do not notice any actual

mistakes.
FTFY.
>

The only "mistake" that anyone ever pointed out is essentially "that's
not the way that I memorized it".

No, your mistake is the contradictory requirements for H:
>

 The way that the halting problem is conventionally understood is
that H must correctly answer yes or no to an input that contradicts
both answers.
 That is the exact same incorrect question as this:
Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?

Nope. The difference is that the decider is created first, and then the question is constructed with a correct answer, that just isn't the one that that decider gives.
That you don't understand this diffference just shows how little you understand about programs.

 

When the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH is not the same as the
behavior of the directly executed DD(DD)
they assume the simulation must be wrong even though it it an easily
verified fact that it is correct.

That's not an assumption. That's the definition of simulation: doing
exactly the same thing as the direct execution, which may be infinite
recursion. But then H is not a decider.
>