Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder6.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: Incorrect questions and halt deciders
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:10:14 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usttb8$1qebb$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <ustcb1$16vpq$1@dont-email.me> <ustf8m$1oq9q$15@i2pn2.org>
 <ustk88$18fp9$1@dont-email.me> <ustq1i$1qebb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <ustrv6$1dg5a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 04:10:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1915243"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ustrv6$1dg5a$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6807
Lines: 176

On 3/13/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no mapping from
>>> (a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>> (b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
>>>>
>>>> Which is a different issue.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>
>>>> Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
>>> and a non-existent halt decider H
>>>
>>>> Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no mapping from
>>> (a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>
>>
>> Which s a lying comment since nothing in the question asks for one.
>>
> 
> There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

Which isn't the mapping the question asks about.

That would be mre like what decider gets the Halting Question right the 
pathological input?

Not, Does the input Halt when run?

Look at the wrong question and of course you get the wrong answer.

And repeatedly doing that is just another form of DECEPTION and LYING.

The QUESTION ask for the mapping of D D -> {Halting, Non-Halting}

anything else is just a LIE.

> isomorphic to
> mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
> 
>> The question ask for the mapping from D,D to Halts(D,D), which exists.
>> Remeber, the question is, and only is:
>>
> That is not the question that H(D,D) is being asked.

So, you continue to lie about that.

I guess you are just incurably stupid.

Do you still remember the question of the Halting Problem?

THE REAL ONE

> The same as the specific_unmarried_man
> 
> The logical law of polar questions
> Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM  sci.lang
> 
> When posed to a man whom has never been married,
> the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
> Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
> no is a correct answer.
> 
>> Does the Machine and Input described by the input Halt when run.
>>
>> Thus, H only gets ivolved when we are CHECKING the answer.
>>
>>> (b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
>>>
>>> (a) and (b) are isomorphic.
>>
>> Only in that H doesn't exist, as oesn't the man's wife.
>>
> They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine 
>>>> described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final 
>>>> state, which has 
>>>
>>> That <is> one half of the mapping.
>>> To be isomorphic
>>> mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
>>> we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>
>> Which is just a Red Herring, because we are NOT asking about what H 
>> does, but about what its input represents and what H needs to do to be 
>> correct.
>>
>>>
>>>> an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed to 
>>>> have specifed before you could ever actually ask the question.
>>>>
>>>> You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
>>>>
>>> It now seems to me that you never were lying.
>>> The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
>>>
>>> It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
>>> obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
>>> of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude
>>> that you and others were lying.
>>>
>>> The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
>>> against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
>>> my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
>>
>> No, we are biased to the truth.
>>
>>>
>>> Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
>>> many times you and others totally failed.
>>>
>>
>> But the queston isn't about the execution trace,
> 
> Yes it always was.
> *You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually did*
> You disagreed with the proven facts.

How is it about the execution trace of what H or H1 sees?

The question asks NOTHING about that, so you are just proving yourself 
stupid.

> 
>> it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation represented by 
>> the input (which you almost NEVER show, 
> 
> That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
> details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
> simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.

Nope.

A correctly simulated D, when H(D,D) returns 0 will HALT.

PERIOD.

Any simulation that says otherwise is a LIE.


> 
>> because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider gives.
>>
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========