XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 3:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 10/22/2025 2:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-10-22, André G  Isaak  wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-22 12:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,   
   >>>>> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I think part of the problem here is that Olcott doesn't grasp that the   
   >>>> "finite string input" DD *must* include as a substring the entire   
   >>>> description of HHH.   
   >>>   
   >>> Furthermore, he doesn't get that it doesn't literally have to be HHH,   
   >>> but the same algorithm: a workalike.   
   >>>   
   >>> The HHH analyzing DD's halting could be in C, while the HHH   
   >>> called by DD could be in Python.   
   >>   
   >> DD does call HHH(DD) in recursive simulation   
   >> and you try to get away with lying about it.   
   >   
   > I'm saying that's not a requirement in the halting problem.   
   >   
      
   Yet again with deflection.   
   That the input to HHH(DD) specfies non-haltin and   
   HHH(DD) correctly reports this proves that the   
   proof does not prove its point or that the halting   
   problem incorrectly requires HHH to report on   
   behavior that the input to HHH(DD) does not specify.   
      
      
   > DD does not have to use that implementation of HHH; it can have   
   > its own clean-room implementation and it can be in any language.   
   >   
   > But nonetheless, yes, there will still be a nested simulation tower.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)