Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:02:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v4muph$1sav$1@news.muc.de>
References: <v4j0h2$39gh7$3@dont-email.me> <v4k0sr$3f4m3$1@dont-email.me> <v4k44j$3fmth$1@dont-email.me> <v4m5gj$3v41v$1@dont-email.me> <v4mmnp$1qt6$2@dont-email.me> <v4ms37$5nh5$1@i2pn2.org> <v4mtif$3cbf$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:02:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="61791"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 2855
Lines: 55

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:44:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/16/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

>>>> Whenever a decider is run it answers the question it is made to answer.
>>> Not necessarily. Just because everyone falsely assumes that D correctly
>>> simulated by H must have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D)
>>> does not make this false assumption true.

>> You still need to explain how you can call a simulation that differs from
>> the behaviour of its input "correct".

Indeed, you do.

> I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
> everyone's heads.

Nonsense!  How about, instead of "proving", actually explaining?  If a
simulation differs from its original, it's not a simulation; it's just a
random program.

> When I ask what your C programming skill level is, this *is not* a
> rhetorical question.

The question has nothing to do with C programming.

[ .... ]

>> If H is a simulator, it must simulate the execution of D(D).

> I have proven this to be a false assumption ....

It isn't an assumption, it's a definition.

> .... and people maintain this false assumption entirely on the basis
> that my proof is over their heads.

Most of the people on this newgroup, apart from yourself, are experts on
the subject.  Nothing you can conjure up is going to be "over their
heads".  They've seen it all before.

>> H does not compute the answer to "What does H say about its input?",
>> since it could answer anything then.
>> It makes no sense to call a wrong answer the correct answer to a different
>> question.

Indeed.

> -- 
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).