Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Incorrect questions and halt deciders
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:03:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 242
Message-ID: <usu0eh$1dtb2$2@dont-email.me>
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> <usttb8$1qebb$2@i2pn2.org>
 <ustueh$1dtaj$1@dont-email.me> <ustviq$1qebc$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f3eb961a063c3bce678c6e8a0c550c7";
	logging-data="1504610"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18d5aHldbsSQH5sL5lk7/rZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:quCvluMs9KTl3qIsAstz43/1Qx4=
In-Reply-To: <ustviq$1qebc$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9660

On 3/13/2024 11:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/13/24 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 11:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity.
>> There is a mapping from    D(D) to Halts(D,D).
>> There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
> 
> YOU ARE JUST BEING STUPID.
> 
> The Question, Does the Computation Described by your inpt (in this case 
> D(D) ) halt when run does NOT ask about a mappig from anything OTHER 
> than D(D) to Halts (D,D)
> 

This is simply a degree of detail that you choose to ignore.
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)==1
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)???

> H1(D,D) or H(D,D) are NOT "more specific" thatn D(D) when asking about D(D)
> 
> And you are just a stupid pathological liar for saying so.
> 
> Where on earth do you get that H1 or H are in ANY WAY a "stand-in" for 
> the behavior of the input they are trying to decide on.
> 
> They are the thing being TESTED.
> 
> You are just showing your TOTAL and UTTER STUPIDITY here.
> 
> 
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========