Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) --- mindless robots

On 4/14/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 7:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 06:46:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting to do the
opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not a problem though. DD
merely changes its own behavior through the pathological self-reference
that it implements.

DD doesn’t change anything. It is completeley determined by the return
value of HHH. Either it halts or it doesn’t, and HHH returns the wrong
result.
>

Then HHH simply reports on this changed behavior. HHH need not even know
that DD is calling itself. It only need to know that the behavior of DD
would prevent its own termination.

If HHH reports on what DD *would* do *if* HHH returned the other value,
that’s changing the input. (HHH doesn’t „know” anything at all.)
>

 Hypothetical freaking possibilities of alternatives is
not a very difficult thing. I don't understand why its so
hard for you.
 

But if you try to imagine HHH doing something different than what it does, you are changing the PROGRAM given as the input, as that, to BE a program must include all the code it uses, which was the original HHH, not your new imaginary HHH.
Thus, for HHH to imagine that the input is calling something other than itself isn't being imaginative, but just lying to itself.
Yes, you can imagine that other HHH as a whole new problem, and that HHH either aboets its emulation, thinking its input is non-halting, and is wrong about that, or it doesn't abort its emulation, and never gives an answer.
This just shows that you imaginary cases just prove that no decider based on your idea can give a correct answer for this problem.
TO imagine the HHH that the input uses acting different than the HHH that is trying to decide on it is just imagining something that is logically impossible, and thus is a self-contradictory idea that breaks your logic.