Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways

On 6/5/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:

H(D,D) cannot possibly return the halt status of D(D) because
D calls H in recursive simulation thus forcing the behavior of
D correctly simulated by H to be different than the behavior of
the directly executed D(D).

So, you admit that HH can not actualy be a Halt Decider if it can not correctly return that halt status of the machine described by its input, which is the task of a halt Decide

 Requiring H(D,D) to return the halt status of D(D) is exactly
the same as requiring sum(3,4) to return the sum of 5 + 6.

Nope, because H WAS given D, and D as input, so needs to answer about D(D).
Sum(3, 4) was not given 5 and 6 as input, so shouldn't answer about those, but that is EXACTLY what you say H should be doing, when H is asked aobut H(D,D) where D calls that H, you say H shoudl actualanswer about D'(D') as if it was called as H(D',D') where D' is built from a DIFFERENT decider H', that doesn't abort.

 *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
 

Nope, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the truth.