Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:57:38 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 23:57:38 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="122029"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6680 Lines: 130 On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>> >>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>> >>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>> >>> >>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >> >> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H >> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >> Halting Problem. >> > > You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that > deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what > you think that this input should mean. > And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. IF H(D,D) doesn't mean the behavior of D(D), then you built D wrong, as its requirements stated it was to use the decider to decide on this input programs behavior for this input. So, it means the behavior of D(D) or you are a LIAR and nothing you have said means anything >>> >>> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption >>> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? >> >> I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. >> >> >> I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. >> >> I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out >> that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting >> the definition of a Halt Decider. >> >>> >>>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >>>> >>>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >>>> NOTHING to do with the problem, >>> >>> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete >>> instance of the problem. >> >> Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. >> >> Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program >> described by the input. > > I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn > or ignorant to comprehend this. YOU CAN'T "PROVE" a defintion to means something it doesn't mean That is just admitting to trying to lie. You are just proving you don't understand the basics of logic, > >> By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H >> to decide on D(D). >> > > Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even > understand how it could be possible does not change you > religious conviction that I must be wrong. And thus you are just admitting that you have been lying, since you said that D was built exactly to the Linz template. How do you explain it otherwise? > >> If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been >> working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. >> > > When I correct false assumptions that others have had > about the halting problem that does not mean that I am > not working on the halting problem. You have not "corrected a false assumption", you have just admitted to LYING about following requirements. It seems the only "False Assumption" was that we could beleive anything you asaid. > > When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical > that does not mean that they were not working on the shape > of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth. >