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: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:36:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4diet$3qbnc$7@i2pn2.org>
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> <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v4ck2c$1o4b4$2@dont-email.me> <v4d9gt$3qbnc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4daoq$1sioe$2@dont-email.me> <v4dbun$3qbnc$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v4df07$1te0b$1@dont-email.me> <v4dfsu$3qbnd$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dhuk$1tsdf$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:36:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4dhuk$1tsdf$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8573
Lines: 245

On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that 
>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the 
>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is 
>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that 
>>>> Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the 
>>>> machine represented by its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *H is not even being asked that question*
>>
>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider?
>>
>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the 
>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>>
> 
> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.

How do you say that?

Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?

> 
> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified
> by this finite string input.

So, Definitions don't mean anything?

I guess they don't to LIARS.

And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is 
just a LIE to you.

> 
> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior
> of the directly executed D(D).

Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.

> 
>>> H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string
>>> inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules.
>>
>> Nope, Where do you get that from?
>>
> 
> H computes the mapping.
> H does not read your mind to see what you expect.

No, but the programmer who claims that H is a Halt decider was 
responsible for knowing the defintion of the problem before saying he 
had a solution.



> When H(D,D) computes the mapping FROM ITS FINITE STRING INPUT
> IT CANNOT POSSIBLY GET TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED D(D)

So, it just shows it NEVER WAS a Halt decider, and its creator (you) has 
just been LYING about what it was supposed to be.

> 
>> You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you 
>> don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is 
>> correct.
>>
>>>
>>> H is not answering the question that is in your head.
>>> H is answering the question that it is being asked.
>>>
>>
>> So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time 
>> about working on the halting problem.
>>
>> There goes you claim to have never lied.
> 
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !

Halt(M, d) -> True if M(d) will Halt
            -> False if M(d) will never Halt.

For ALL Turing Machines M and inputs d.


That is the DEFINITION, that you have knows about since you started, as 
it is clearly in the definition of the problem.

If you neglected it, it just shows you don't understand the meaning of 
requirements.

Your claim that a "Halt Decider" can "correct" compute ANY other mapping 
just shows you to be a pathological liar

> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========