Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:06:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior
specified by this finite string input.

The input is D(D), and the answer is its behaviour, not how H
wrongly simulates it.

H can only see that it must report on D simulated by H.
No one ever tells it anything different than this.

H does not know about or simulate itself. It must simply report on D,
however it does it.
If it were reporting on the result of what it was simulating, it could
give any answer it wanted.

The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D).

WHAT? It even simulates it!

H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior that it is to
report on and no one ever told it about D(D). They only told it about D
correctly simulated by H.

The input is D(D), not H(D,D). The latter is the whole result.
If we were computing H(H,D(D)), it could give any answer it wanted and
would be tautologically correct. "I computed this result, therefore I am
correct." H is not part of the input.

I will ask you, where in the input to H is the question about asking
about its behavior encoded in ANY way?
The question a program answers, is part of the program specification,
not the input.

The input must tell H about its behavior and it does not tell H about
D(D).

Huh? When the input is D(D), H can know its behaviour.

--
joes