Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2

On 6/15/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 6:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 22:53:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/14/2024 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
  > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>

H, being a Halting Decider (or are you lying about that) has exactly
one question it *IS* being asked about every input it s given, that
that is "Will the execution of the program represented by your input
Halt when run?"

Yes you are very good at memorizing textbooks now prove that the input
to H(D,D) can be transformed into the question Does D(D) halt?

H answers the question "Does my input halt?", and the input is D(D). QED.
>

 The input to H(D,D) specified D correctly simulated by H and cannot
possibly specified the behavior of D(D). People simply assume that
it does specify this behavior because proving that it does not is
way above what they can understand so they use their own ignorance
as the basis to guess that I am wrong.

But the question to H, if H *IS* a Halt Decider, isn't about the "Correct Simulation by H", but about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine described by the input.
Thus, all you are doing is admitting that your H isn't actually a Halt Decider, and you whole proof is built on LIES.

 On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
 >> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
 >> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
 >> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
 >> behavior of the directly executed D(D)
 >>
 >
 > Why? I don't claim it can.
 If there is no mapping form the input to H(D,D) to the behavior
of D(D) then H is not being asked about the behavior of D(D).