Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/10/2025 1:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 12:13 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 00:06 -0500, olcott wrote:>>

When mathematical mapping is properly understood
it will be known that functions computed by models
of computation must transform their input into
outputs according to the specific steps of an
algorithm.
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
For example HHH(DDD) only correctly map to the
behavior that its input actually specifies by correctly
emulating DDD according to the rules of the x86 language.
>
This causes the first four instructions of DDD
to be emulated followed by HHH emulating itself
emulating the first three instructions of DDD.
>
It is right at this recursive simulation just
before HHH(DDD) is called again that HHH recognizes
the repeating pattern and rejects DDD.

>
Yes, but you still did not answer the question: Is POOH exactly about HP?
>

  >>>>> H(D)=1 if D() halt.
 >>>>> H(D)=0 if D() not halt.
 Right now it is mostly about proving the
above requirements are is mistaken.
 

But I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.  It would be *very* useful to me if I had an algorithm H that could tell me that in *all* possible cases.  If so, I could solve the Goldbach conjecture, among many other unsolved problems.
What I'm asking for has a correct answer in all cases, and is therefore not "incorrect" or mistaken.
Does an algorithm H exist that can tell me that or not?