Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 06:48:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:

On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:

On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:

On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:

Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next
month will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I
will totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.

Ok, I will wait a month then.
>

Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

>
Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it cannot
properly decide about its input, because  it must abort the correct
simulation before it sees that the correct simulation terminates
normally.
>

The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition. it
maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.

 
If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot claim
that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a 2 years
old child.
Similarly, when HHH aborts the simulation, it closes its eyes for what
happens in a correct simulation of DD.

HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it
specifies.

DD specifies halting behaviour, by only calling a „decider”, a program
purported to halt.

This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD) in
recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate normally.

If DD doesn’t halt, the outerHHH can’t be able to report on it;
if the outer HHH halted, the inner one would do the same, because
it IS the same.

All of the people that think it should map the behavior of a non-input
have always been wrong.

It is a verified fact that the finite string given to HHH describes a
program that halts.
But olcott claims he does not use this input, but a non-input, a
different program, as input to HHH. He does not understand that HHH
should decide about the input described by the finite string that has
been proven to halt.

QFT

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.