Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:22:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3oi5p$328ec$11@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3og5t$328ec$9@i2pn2.org> <v3oh4q$pi6u$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 02:22:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3219916"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v3oh4q$pi6u$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6871
Lines: 139

On 6/4/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/4/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2024 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-03 18:14:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/3/2024 9:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-03 12:20:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have 
>>>>>>>>> been posted here.
>>>>>>>>> PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in 
>>>>>>>>> various traces.
>>>>>>>>> i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims.  PO has acknowledged 
>>>>>>>>> both these
>>>>>>>>> results.  Same for the HH/DD variants.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed.  :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's right, but PO just carries on anyway!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct 
>>>>>>>> result for
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts".  I am mystified why anyone 
>>>>>>>> continues to
>>>>>>>> discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that 
>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own
>>>>>>> accept or reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
>>>>>> If the computed mapping differs from the specified one the
>>>>>> decider does not solve the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>>>>> sum(2,3) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6.
>>>>
>>>> That does not restrict what a problem statement can specify.
>>>> If the mapping computed by sum differs from the specified one
>>>> the program sum does not solve the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting,
>>>  > which IS about the direct execution of DD
>>>
>>> Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
>>> compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
>>> OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).
>>
>> But strings don't HAVE "Behavior", they only represent things that do.
>>
> 
> Turing Machine descriptions specify behavior to UTMs.

Right, because that description represents the Turing Machine whose 
behavior the UTM will recreate.

Remember, the DEFINITION of a UTM is that it exactly reproduces the 
results of the machine that the description describes.

So, by that logic, your HH needs to answer about the behavior that a UTM 
would bget when it simulates that input, which will still be paired to 
the HH that it was paired with (and not changed to be the UTM).

That WILL be exactly the behavior of the direct execution of the input, 
the thing you try to claim it can not be, but it is shown that you are 
just a liar.

> 
>> And, for a Halt decider, that thing they represent is the program, 
>> whose direct execution specifies the proper behavior of the input.
>>
>> The DEFINITON IS NOT  "as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH", 
>> as deciders, by their definiton, are trying to compute the mapping of 
>> their input according to a defined function, which is a function of 
>> just that input. Since that function doesn't know which "H' is going 
>> to try to decide on it, it can't change its answer based on which H we 
>> ask.
>>
>> Proper Deciders can not be asked "Subjective" questions, unless we 
>> SPECIFICALLY define the mapping to include the decider as one of the 
>> inputs, and at that point, the question actually ceases to be 
>> subjective, as it becomes, what should THAT H say about this input, 
>> which is back to an objective agian (since machines are deterministic, 
>> so the definition of H tells us what H will answer to that question).
>>
>>>
>>> When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
>>> *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*
>>
>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you
>>
>>>
>>> When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
>>> an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
>>> is precisely isomorphic to the question:
>>> Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
>>> Thus that question and the HP question are both incorrect
>>> because both yes and no are the wrong answer.
>>
>> Nope, Just shows how small your mind is.
>>
>> Proven elsewhere.,
>>
>>>
>>> The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of
>>> how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning
>>> of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored.
>>> It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation
>>> to ignore this.
>>>
>>
>> But the question it asks is an OBJECTIVE question that doesn't depend 
>> on who it is asked of.
>>
> 
> When H is asked about the behavior of a Machine that is programmed
> to do the opposite of whatever it says then the context that it is H
> that is being asked is an inherent aspect of the meaning of this
> question and cannot be correctly ignored.
> 
> The theory of computation people are ignorant of how linguistic
> context change the meaning of expressions REALLY IS NO EXCUSE.
> 
>> It is your own fault for trying to rephrase it incorrectly into a 
>> subjective version.
>>
>> Thus, you statment is just a deceitful lie.
> 
> You may have to go to Hell for calling me a liar when you know
> that I believe what I say because this makes you a liar. I say
> this for your own safety.
>