Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/17/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
The input *is* the machine address of this finite
string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3

>
You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answer anything
other than its input. Now you say that the the program at 15c3 is not
a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed consider it
even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns. But without that
knowledge it is not possible to determine whether DDD halts.
>

>
It maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
to non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation.

>
That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of the
problem specification.

 decider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.

And if the specification isn't the Halting behavior of the program represented by the input, it isn't halting.
Of course, you have already admitted you input isn't actually the representation of a program so you are admitting that you whole argument is based on a LIE.

 

The finite string does not reveal what is the
effect of calling whatever that address happens to contain.

 A simulating termination analyzer proves this.

Really? You haven't sbown that, just that you think LYING is valid logic.

 

The
behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore your
"decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not allowed.
>

 HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self
in its own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on
the effect of the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.
 

Of course it is, if it is given the representation of itself.
I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word "ALL"