Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is.

>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider what the
>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) does is not any of the business of H.
>>>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means.

>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it,
>>>> that is a UTM.

>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior
>> of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
> transforming [it] into the behavior that it
> specifies using finite string transformation rules.
> *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that*
It has a *specification* it must fulfill.

-- 
joes