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

On 5/11/25 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper where
this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd
even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
ready to denigrate his work.
Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for insinuations.
>

It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
that is wrongheaded.
(1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
opposite" code is unreachable.

>

The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
the opposite.
>

>
HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
its actual input actually specifies.

>
>
Which is DEFINED to be the bahavior of the program that the input represents when run.

>
When you define 5 == 6 you are simply wrong.
That definition contradicts other axioms.
>

>
And where did I do that?
>

 When the definition of the halting problem requires
the termination analyzer H to report on behavior besides
the behavior of the input D simulated by H according
to the rules of the computational language that the
input D is encoded within.
 

Where do you get that behavior to be decided needs to be based on the partial simulation of the decider.
You try to call that PARTIAL simulation as according to the rule of the language, but it isn't.
If you stipulate that you H actually DOES the emulation that you specify, then you have proven that you have effective stipulated that you H is not a decider.
Sorry, but your system is based on requiring the existance of a machine that can not exist, a machine that can both do a simulation for an unbounded number of steps, but still after that return an answer in a finite number of steps.
Sorry, you system is just proven to be self-contradictory and totally exploded in illogic.