[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> H(P) does correctly report on the actual behavior   
   >>>> that its actual input actually specifies.   
   >>>   
   >>> IF it does, then you lied about building your P by the proof.   
   >>>   
   >>> As P is supposed to call H with the desciption of itself when run as   
   >>> an independent program.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Deciders are a pure function of their inputs   
   >> proving that H(P)==0 is correct and the requirement   
   >> is not a pure function of the input to H(P)   
   >> is an incorrect requirement within the definition:   
   >> *Deciders are a pure function of their inputs*   
   >>   
   >   
   > Doesn't follow.   
   >   
   > That H generates a 0 result with the input P only says that is what H   
   > computes.   
   >   
      
   H reports on the actual behavior that its   
   actual finite string input actually specifies   
      
   All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   P simulated by H is the only correct way of an   
   infinite set of ways for H to correctly determine   
      
   the actual behavior that its actual finite string   
   input actually specifies   
      
   on the basis of finite string transformation rules   
   applied to its input finite string.   
      
      
   > That doesn't make it the correct answer for a Halt Decider.   
   >   
   > You are just proving you (1) don't know what you are talking about, and   
   > (2) don't really care, as you don't try to learn, and thus (3) you are   
   > just proving that you are a stupid and ignorant pathologically lying idiot.   
   >   
   > Why do you think the requirement is not a pure function of its input?   
   >   
   > Do you even know what that means?   
   >   
   > The Halting function maps THIS P (the one based on your H that says H(P)   
   > -> 0) to Halting.   
   >   
   > IT maps EVERY possible machine/input to Halting or Not Halting based   
   > solely on that defined machine/input.   
   >   
   > Thus, it *IS* a "Pure Function" of that input.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving how low your intelegence is as you keep on   
   > repeating your errors, and just refuse to even try to actually defend   
   > your idea, you just repeat the statement that proves you wrong.   
   >   
   > You are likely down to -50 IQ by now, by any scale that measure   
   > logically ability.   
      
      
   --   
   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)