Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<pan$530c9$d2237574$c10f0852$6b80374b@example.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite
 string transformation rules
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:05:42 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <pan$530c9$d2237574$c10f0852$6b80374b@example.com>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org>
	<v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me>
	<v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me> <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v4dhf5$1tsdf$2@dont-email.me> <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
	<v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me> <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org>
	<v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:05:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4042628"; 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: 4212
Lines: 52

Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:21:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION.
>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider.
What else could "pass a program and input to a halt decider" mean?

>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the
>>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D).
>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down version
>>> for people that do not really understand these things.
>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your
>> unverifiable false claims?
> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head does not
> make me incorrect.
AKA "I made it up".
> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that they
> are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook?


>> And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H
>> to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable.
> When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer does not exist
> this is called an undecidable question.
> When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist this is a
> whole new issue that no one ever noticed before.
AKA "the machine is wrong".

>> Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a
>> computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to
>> have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a
>> way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems
>> that were coming up in mathematics and logic.
> If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect then your
> expectations were incorrect.
Namely, that halting is decidable.

>> There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that
>> makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete
>> (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be
>> proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth
>> Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs untrue (false
>> or not having a truth value).
>> Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an
>> method to compute the answer.


-- 
joes