XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/22/2025 1:40 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/22/2025 12:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/22/2025 10:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore   
   >>>>>>>>> whatever I say.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been   
   >>>>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they   
   >>>>>>>> deserve.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details   
   >>>>>>>> ignored.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings   
   >>>>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing   
   >>>>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the   
   >>>>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The halting problem positively does not propose anything   
   >>>>>> like that, which would be gapingly wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It only seems that way because you are unable to   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, it doesn't only seem that way. Thanks for playing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> provide the actual mapping that the actual input   
   >>>>> to HHH(DD) specifies when DD is simulated by HHH   
   >>>>> according to the semantics of the C language,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> DD is a "finite string input" which specifies a behavior that is   
   >>>> independent of what simulates it,   
   >>>   
   >>> That is stupidly incorrect.   
   >>> That DD calls HHH(DD) (its own simulator) IS PART OF   
   >>> THE BEHAVIOR THAT THE INPUT TO HHH(DD) SPECIFIES.   
   >>   
   >> In no way am I saying that DD is not built on HHH, and   
   >> does not have a behavior dependent on that of HHH.   
   >> Why would I ever say that?   
   >>   
   >> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,   
   >> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That too is stupidly incorrect.   
   > It is the job of every simulating halt decider   
   > to predict what the behavior of it simulated   
   > input would be if it never aborted.   
      
   In other words, what would happen if that same input was given to UTM.   
      
   >   
   > When a person is asked a yes or no question   
   > there are not two separate people in parallel   
   > universes one that answers yes and one that   
   > answers no. There is one person that thinks   
   > through both hypothetical possibilities and   
   > then provides one answer.   
      
      
   Strawman.  The halting problem is about the instructions themselves, not   
   where instructions physically reside i.e. a particular person's brain.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)