Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory,alt.crackpot Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:27 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4086623"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4924 Lines: 74 Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>>>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>>>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt? >>>>>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of >>>>>>>> the machine represented by its input. >>>>>>> *H is not even being asked that question* >> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts. Why would we ask a machine "What is your own result?"? >>>>>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does >>>>>> the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" >>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >> H answers the wrong question. It answers "I give this result, because I say so". The opposite were equally valid. >>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing the >>>>> mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified by >>>>> this finite string input. >>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer. >>> H must compute question that it is being asked. If H doesn't, it is not what we are looking for. >> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?". > Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption that > they do is ridiculously false. Of course not. Ridiculous is your assumption that I wasn't talking about its specification. > H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive the > behavior that it must report on. The behaviour of D(D) itself doesn't change by whatever H does. > int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; } > sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE. Yes, and sum {return x*y} is a faulty implementation. Why would I expect otherwise? > H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H EVEN > IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE. It must provide the halt status, whether simulated by anything or not. A simulation that changes it is called wrong. > You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of > D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief. Then I don't care about H. I want my H to report on D(D). > There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string > transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D). Which is why a halt decider is impossible. >>> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT >>> MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. >> Then H is not the halt decider you are looking for. The H that violates the specification is not the true H. -- joes