Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met

On 2024-06-28 15:21:15 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/28/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-27 17:38:12 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/27/2024 12:25 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
No. The input is merely a variable in the question. The question is
implicit.
 

Not at all. That is flat out incorrect.

 You are wrong. The input is the variable in the question. The question
is not a part of the input.

 The input is the machine address of the finite string
of x86 machine code.

Not just the address. The input include everyting the pregram reads,
in particular the finite string the input points to. But the current
point is that there is no question there and not place to where a
question could be put.

The input is a specific finite string of bytes that
has the semantics of the x86 programming language.

 For a decider that is made for that sort of input. But there cannot be
any question in that input.

The question is:
Does this finite string of machine code specify behavior
that terminates normally?

That is the question the program is expected to answer but the program
cannot be asked that question, or any other.

None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider is only
required to report on the behavior that its actual input actually maps
to.

 

That is a tautology: „It must simulate that way that it can.”
But it is not free to make something up and claim itself infallible
 

DDD correctly simulated by H0 cannot possible halt.
The same thing goes for the conventional halting problem input.
 

Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map to the
English description of what the authors of textbooks expect it to map
to.

 

That is the definition of a halt decider. If it does not fit that
definition, it is not one.
 

 We could "define" a zipangnitfark as a square circle
that has a radius of a zebra with each equally
length side having the length of a misconception.
 Some definitions ARE incorrect.

 That definition is not incorrect.

 It has type mismatch errors making it incorrect.

The type mismatch error might make all use of the definition incorrect
but not the definition itself.

If I ask you how many kilos do your misconceptions
weigh you cannot provide a correct answer because
of the type mismatch error in the question.

I can provide an answer that I consder correct.

Incoherent definitions are incorrect definitions.

They are not incorrect but probably useless for their purpose.

When I define Snitfinbangflizzledroop as the square-root
of misconceptions about the US constitution my definition
is incorrect because there is no mapping from the input
of misconceptions about the US constitution to any square-root
value.

That does not make the definition incorrect. You just can't apply
that definition if you don't know the mapping.
--
Mikko