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