Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply

On 6/21/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:

>
>
_DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>

>
That is the only definitive way to determine the
actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>

>
It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>

>
Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>

>
>
Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>

>
If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
the question: Does D(D) halt?

>
You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>
There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping must be computable.
>

You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>
That you don't understand the details of how deciders
are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.

>
Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>

>
You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
science textbooks.

>
And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
>
The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and then design the program to give the right answer.

>
Yet the program must compute the mapping from the
input to the behavior that the program is intended
to report on or it cannot even be asked the question.

>
Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it defines the question that it is answering.
>
That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying idiot.
>

>
Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively
about as stupid as one gets.

 Which shows how little you understand logic.
 MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying idiot because you keep on repeating the exact same error.
 YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only reason you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid.
 THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID.
 

>
If I was even incorrect you could show the exact
step of my mistake and thus have something more
that pure bluster.

 Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is the question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to be solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are just being a liar.
 

int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer