Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

On 4/14/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 8:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 15/04/2025 02:02, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/14/2025 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 4:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:54:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/13/2025 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:57:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>
<snip>
>

THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS NOT RELEVANT TO A
CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER?

Yes.

To clarify: that *HHH* does not simulate DDD halting has no bearing on
its direct execution.
>

>
THE DIRECT EXECUTION IS NOT WHAT IT SEES

>
Irrelevant.

>
>
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY

>
Far from it. In fact it's very very true, and the all-caps foot- stamping doesn't help your case one jot.
>

THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.

>
It doesn't matter how they work.

 You can't stupidly ignored that all deciders must be
computable functions.
 

Which is irrelevent, except to show that some functions can't be computable, as there are more functions that can be asked to map then there are deciders.
Your problem is, that so many ofter things you do, you get the basic backwards. The fact that the decider must be computing a computable function doesn't force the function it has been required to compute to solve the problem to be computable. Since it isn't, it just answers the other part of the problem, "Does there exist a decider ...?"
And that answer is NO. There does not exist a correct halt decider.