Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
definition of correct simulation.
>

And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,

>

The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable
 

When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required to
report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest
people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one
one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have
simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years.

"only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when
simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result
simulating this is right, because it is my result!".

The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed H and the
simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P proves that each
instruction of P was simulated correctly and in the correct order this
conclusively proves that P is correctly simulated by both of these
instances of H.

Does the called H also match?

--
joes