Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:

>
I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION.
H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
>

>
So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider.
>

>
No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.

 How is it a H
 

I gave you the source-code.

>

Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the machine their input describes, in this case D(D).
>

>
This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down
version for people that do not really understand these things.

 Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your unverifiable false claims?
 

Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head
does not make me incorrect.
How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that
they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook?

You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE.
 

No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed.

>

So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, and what problem you have been working on.
>

>
All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid
to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means.
>

 And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable.
 

When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer
does not exist this is called an undecidable question.
When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist
this is a whole new issue that no one ever noticed before.

Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems that were coming up in mathematics and logic.
 

If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect
then your expectations were incorrect.

There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs unture (false or not having a truth value).
 

That you are having a hard time understanding this brand new
material is reasonable. The biggest problem with this is that
you are so sure that I must be incorrect that you hardly pay
any attention to what I say.

Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an method to compute the answer.
 

That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives to lie about things.

>

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer