Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)

Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:14:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>
It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by the
semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the behavior
of the directly executed D(D)
>

Why? I don't claim it can.
>

That means that H cannot even be asked the question:
"Does D halt on its input?"

 
WHy not? After all, H does what it does, the PERSON we ask is the
programmer.
 

*When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other*
There is no way to encode any H such that it can be asked: Does D(D)
halt?

That is the question that H answers for every other input.

You must see this from the POV of H or you won't get it.
H cannot read your theory of computation textbooks, it only knows what
it directly sees, its actual input.

And it doesn't need to know more, the behaviour of D is completely
specified by its transition table and input (which happens to be itself).

If there is no possible way for H to transform its input into the
behavior of D(D) then H cannot be asked about the behavior of D(D).

It only means it doesn't give the right answer, when given D(D) as input.
It was specified to answer for all machines.

Also I'm not He.

--
joes