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

On 6/21/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
 

In this case the definition of the x86 language specifies
the behavior of DDD. If you deny this then you are a liar.
No matter how much textbooks expect that the input to HH0(DDD)
does not specify recursive simulation their counter-factual
expectations are refuted.
_DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
It is as if you have been indoctrinated like the
Moonies: (cult members must be deprogrammed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer