[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   
      
   Then you admit your string was wrong for the question that P was   
   supposed to make, and thus you LIED that you followed the proof.   
      
   >   
   > All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   > inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   > {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   Yes, but to be a HALT deciders, that mapping needs to match the HALT   
   function, which is whether the machine so described halts when run, or   
   equivalently, if UTM applied to that input will halt. (NOT a non-UTM   
   decider, and since H's transform doesn't match the behavior of the   
   machine the input was said to represent, it isn't a UTM)   
      
   >   
   > P simulated by H is the only correct way of an   
   > infinite set of ways for H to correctly determine   
      
   It may be the best it can do, but it isn't sufficient.   
      
   Just like if asked someone about the sum of seven and eight, but they   
   only do arithmatic on their fingers, so they answer "many", the answer   
   gotten isn't correct.   
      
   >   
   > the actual behavior that its actual finite string   
   > input actually specifies   
      
   Nope, that behavior comes from its definition.   
      
   Either you admit you LIED that your input was proper for the quesiton,   
   or that you LIED that H correctly analyized the string.   
      
   P was SUPPOSED to be asking H about the behavior of P when run,   
      
   If the string you gave was correct for that, H's only correct answer   
   would be halting.   
      
   If the string you specifies a non-halting computation, then it couldn't   
   have been a specifing the behavior of P when run.   
      
   You just don't know what you are talking about.   
      
   >   
   > on the basis of finite string transformation rules   
   > applied to its input finite string.   
      
   It may be the only method for H, but isn't the definition of the property.   
      
   All you are doing is PROVING you don't understand the basic concepts of   
   the problem, like what a Program is, what Behavior is, What a   
   Representation is, or even what Truth is.   
      
   Sorry, but you are just proving your utter stupidity and inability to   
   learn basic facts.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)