----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: GMN3.613206@fx16.iad>
dc669e4b
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> cc5b057e
@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> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID:
GMN3.613206@fx16.iad>
@TZUTC: -0400
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 8/21/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/21/2023 5:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-08-19 23:02:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> If D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally then
>>> this proves that the actual behavior of the actual input is non-halting.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>> A halt decider is required to report on the actual behavior of the
>>> actual input and it not allowed to report on any other behavior.
>>
>> Wrong. A halt decider is required to report whether the actual
>> computation it is asked about therminates.
>
> All deciders must map THEIR INPUT to an accept or reject state
> on the basis of a property of THIS INPUT.
>
> All halt deciders must map THEIR INPUT to an accept or reject state
> on the basis of the behavior specified by THIS ACTUAL INPUT.
>
> The actual behavior specified by this actual input is the behavior
> of D correctly simulated by H. This behavior of this input must
> include the change in the behavior caused by the pathological
> relationship specified by the source code.
>
> I don`t know how my reviewers think that they can get away with
> different behavior than the behavior that the source-code stipulates.
>
> When the source code stipulates that D simulated by H cannot possibly
> terminate normally then this must be reported as non-halting.
>
>
ANd H`s input is (or at least must be if you are following the proof) a
description of the computation D(D) where D is calls THIS H and asks
what that computation does.
So, guess you are just admitting that you are a LIAR, as you haven`t
built D correctly.
Also, if H is a "Halt Decider", then the question is NOT "Can H simulate
the input to a final state", but does the machine represented by the
input reach a final state when run (or CORRECTLY simulated).
I guess that just shows your nature, that of an ignorant pathologica liar.
You can`t "stipulate" that something is true, just what meaning you are
using for a word, and if that disagres with the ACTUAL definition of the
word, you are just stipulating that you logic doesn`t apply to it.
PROOF, you are wrong.
--- 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