XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/14/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/13/25 11:42 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >> On 13/12/2025 22:31, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> ... the representation of the machine can be used to determine the   
   >>> behavior of the machine.   
   >>>   
   >>> How do you thing a UTM works?   
   >>   
   >> I think it's clear he thinks it doesn't, not /exactly/.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But his proof depends on his decider being "based on" a UTM (with   
   > additions) and thus qualifies to demonstrate the behavior.   
      
   The simulation of DD as an input to HHH derives   
   different behavior than the simulation of DD by   
   HHH1 because DD calls HHH in recursive simulation   
   and DD does not call HHH1 at all.   
      
   HHH must simulate an instance of itself simulating   
   an instance of DD that eventually calls yet another   
   instance of HHH(DD). HHH recognizes that this would   
   repeat forever if it did not intervene.   
      
   HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that returns   
   0 to this instance of DD.   
      
   I have been explaining this to people here for   
   years and they never get it. Now that I have   
   formulated first principles they might be able   
   to finally see.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)