Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:

>
And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that performs the following mapping:
>

>
That is not what I said you damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.
>

 Try again:
 

 On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
 > When we define the HP as having H return a value
 > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
 > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
 > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
 > in to a problem having no solution.
 

No *INPUT* D can possibly actually do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.
int main()
{
   DDD(); // is not an input to the HHH(DDD) that this DDD calls.
}

On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
 > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H
 > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is
 > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports.
 > Of course this is impossible.
 

No *INPUT* D can possibly actually do the
opposite of whatever value that H returns.

On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote:
 > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite
 > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that
 > do not, then no single program can do this.
 

*In retrospect it seems that I was wrong about this*
HHH(DDD) correctly determines that the directly executed
DDD() would never stop running unless HHH aborts its
simulation of DDD.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer