XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 6:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I made sure to read what you said all the way through   
   >> this time. DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly   
   >> reach its own final halt state no matter what HHH does.   
   >   
   > The /simulation/ of DD by HHH will not /reproduce/ the halt   
   > state of DD, which DD undeniably /has/.   
   >   
      
   *Hence the halting problem is wrong*   
      
   Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping   
   from their finite string inputs to an accept state   
   or reject state on the basis that this input finite   
   string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.   
      
   This means that the ultimate measure of the behavior   
   that a finite string input D specifies is D correctly   
   simulated by simulating halt decider H.   
      
   The halting problem requires that halt deciders do what   
   no Turing machine decider can do report on the semantic   
   property of non-inputs.   
      
      
   > DD specifies a procedure that transitions to a terminating state,   
   > whether any given simulation of it is carried far enough to show that.   
      
      
   --   
   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)