----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: xMqa.262692@fx12.iad>
db6d3109
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> daa61b82
@REPLYADDR Richard Damon
<Richard@Damon-Family.org>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Richard Damon
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 3@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID:
xMqa.262692@fx12.iad>
@TZUTC: -0400
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 8/14/23 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2023 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-08-13 14:48:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2023 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2023-08-12 15:01:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/12/2023 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> The problem statement clarly states that in this particular case D(D)
>>>>>> is the computation about which H is required to answer. That is all
>>>>>> one can understand about what H must do. Any further understanding
>>>>>> is misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>>> "A decision problem is a yes-or-no
>>>>> question on *an infinite set of inputs*"
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem#Definition
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant as neither the halting problem nor the definition of
>>>> of "termination analyzer" contains the expression "decision problem".
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you do not understand that a halt decider is a decider?
>>
>> I understand that that question is not answered by the definition
>> of the a "halt decider". A halt decider is whatever satisfies the
>> definition of a "halt decider" whether you call it a decider or not.
>>
>
> My point is that the correct behavior to measure is the *input* D
> correctly simulated by H. For this simulation to be correct it must
> account for the pathological relationship between D and H.
Why?
The defined question of an actual halt decider is about the behavior of
the computation described by the input, that is the direct execution of
D(D).
You seem to be claiming the "Strawman Fallacy" is valid logic, which is
just a LIE.
>
> The makes the behavior of D correctly simulated by H different than
> the behavior of of the *non input* D(D) directly executed in main().
No, since the DEFINITION of a "Correct Simulation" of a computation, is
one that produces exactly the same result, all you have done is proved
that your H doesn`t do (and can`t do) a correct simulation.
So, your "proof" just shows that this "pathological" relationship makes
it impossible for H to do the task you want to do, so that alternate
definition can`t be used. Not that H`s INCORRECT (by being only partial)
simulation shows that the input is non-halting.
>
>> Whether a halt decider is a decider or hot depepends on your definition
>> of a "decider". Usually a definition that is satisfied by any halt
>> decider is used but perhaps you are folowing an author that has a
>> different definition.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
>
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: Forte - www.forteinc.com (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441