Re: We finally know exactly how H1(D,D) derives a different result than H(D,D)

On 2024-03-07 16:02, olcott wrote:

That Olcott machines always know their own TMD is unconventional.
 That their own TMD is correctly construed as an additional input
to their computation (whenever they don't ignore it) does provide
the reason why Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <Ĥ> and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ <H> can compute different
results and still be computations.

It's also the reason why you approach is fundamentally flawed. Putting aside the question of whether your proposal is workable (or even sane), if your 'Olcott Machines' automatically supply the machines they emulate with a copy of their own machine descriptions, then you are no longer working on the halting problem.
The halting problem asks, is it possible to construct a TM X that, given a description of a second TM Y and an input string Z *and* *only* *that* *input* *to* *work* *with*, is it possible for X to determine whether Y applied to Z halts.
Asking whether it is possible to construct a TM X which, given a description of a second TM Y, and input string Z, *and* a description X, can X determine whether Y applied to Z halts, is an *entirely* different question.
The answer to these two questions may well be entirely different, and the answer to the second question tells us absolutely nothing about the answer to the first, which is the only thing the halting problem is concerned with.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.