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

On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:

Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
...

It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
business of H.

>
LOL
>

>
There are no finite string transformations from the input
to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
is irrelevant.
>

>
Of course there is.
>
That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>

>
Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
though the cracks of vagueness.
>
Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
DDD terminates normally.

>
WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>
The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>

>
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
*This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
for halt decider H.

>
Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the input when directly run.
>

 *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
*of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
 

NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it.
And the answer is no.

*A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION*
*SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS*

WHo needs a leap of "faith"
We can look at it from the higher level, and not get into the details of this H (that you don't provide here).
Since H(D,D) is claimed to correctly return 0, then we KNOW that the direct exection of D(D), when it calls H(D,D) will eventually see that call return with the value of 0. This follows from the fact that H is claimed to be a pure function, and thus ALL calls to it with the same input MUST produce the same result, thus simple inspection of the code at the C programming level shows that D(D) Must Halt, and thus the UTM simulstion of the input to H, that represents that input must also halt.
Your FALSE claim that H is supposed to report on its non-existant or mis-defined "correct simulation" is just proved to be the lie it is, as you have NEVER been able to show any source that supports it, only your invalid logic that it is the only thing it could be, even though it isn't defined that way (showing your logic process is based on lies being an acceptable method to do things).

 _D()
[00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
[00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
[00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
[00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
[00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
[00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
[00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
[00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
[00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
[00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
[00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
[00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
[00000d1d](01) c3          ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]