Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply

On 6/21/24 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 1:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 12:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:

>
When there is no mapping from the finite string x86 machine
language input to H(D,D) to the  behavior of D(D) then
H(D,D) IS NOT being asked about the behavior of D(D).

>
But there *IS* a mapping, it just isn't a COMPUTABLE MAPPING.
>

>
If there is a mapping yet not a computable mapping then
the actual halt decider cannot even see the question that
the textbooks expect it to see.

>
But a decider doesn't "See" the question. it just computes the result it was programmed to give.
>

 It must be the behavior that the input finite string actually specifies.
It cannot be the behavior that the programmer imagines that it specifies.
 

But strings don't "have" behavior, or even "specify" behavior by themselves, the behavior comes from applying the string to the DEFINITION of the problem.
For instance "2,3" doesn't tell you what to do with those numbers, but you need to know the PROBLEM it is being applied to.
If you are talking of the Halting Problem, then the DEFINIED behavior, is that of the machine the input is a representation of.
Now, the programmer needs to understand the specification of the problem, and not just do what you are doing an trying to imagine some alternate problem. Remember, programs don't understand the problem, but just blindly do the computation given to them. The programmer needs to ultimately connect a given program to the problem it is to try to solve.

You don't seem to understand what a program is. Maybe you are just a badly trained AI that was never trained on computer theory.
>

>
This is not the same thing as the inability to correctly
answer this question. This is something brand new that has
never been thought of before.
>

>
Right, you are just proving you have no idea about what programming is about.
>
sorry, you are just to stupid to understand.
>
Maybe it has never been though of before as it is so based on false ideas that no one has ever been that lost in their logic.