Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) ---
 Boilerplate Reply
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:05:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v54iul$lkkc$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me> <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me> <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me> <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me> <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me> <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me> <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me> <v52mil$jund$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v52n3h$2v5s6$1@dont-email.me> <v52p32$jund$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v52pht$2vh9u$1@dont-email.me> <v52qat$jund$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v52s4l$2vlma$1@dont-email.me> <v52td1$june$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v52tul$307ee$1@dont-email.me> <v5435h$lkkb$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v54bcf$38n2k$1@dont-email.me> <v54buj$lkkc$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v54cia$38n2k$3@dont-email.me> <v54d41$lkkc$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v54dqe$394bf$1@dont-email.me> <v54eko$lkkb$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v54g5b$394bf$3@dont-email.me> <v54hhp$lkkb$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v54i77$39s3a$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:05:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="709260"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v54i77$39s3a$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6705
Lines: 126

On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002093] 55               push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
>>>>>>>>> [000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [000020a4] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to 
>>>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it 
>>>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping 
>>>>>> that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping 
>>>>>> must be computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
>>>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
>>>>
>>>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
>>>>> science textbooks.
>>>>
>>>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
>>>>
>>>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and 
>>>> then design the program to give the right answer.
>>>
>>> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the
>>> input to the behavior that the program is intended
>>> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question.
>>
>> Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it 
>> defines the question that it is answering.
>>
>> That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying 
>> idiot.
>>
> 
> Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively
> about as stupid as one gets.

Which shows how little you understand logic.

MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were 
wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying idiot 
because you keep on repeating the exact same error.

YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only reason 
you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid.

THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID.

> 
> If I was even incorrect you could show the exact
> step of my mistake and thus have something more
> that pure bluster.

Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong 
question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is the 
question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to be 
solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are just 
being a liar.

The fact the code doesn't actually compute that answer doesn't change 
what is the correct answer for it to be what it was claimed to be.

Of course, if a program always halts, it is trivially a decider for 
whatever it happens to compute, but that is an uninteresting problem i 
general.

> 
>> Your "Halt Deciders" just are not Correct Halt Deciders, and you are 
>> LIAR for saying they are,
>>
>> PERIOD.
>>
>>>
>>> This is a very difficult brand new issue that no one has
>>> ever noticed before because they consistently rejected
>>> the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without
>>> any review.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you logic is just incorrect.
>