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 --- finite
 string transformation rules
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:50:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:50:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4dhf5$1tsdf$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4861
Lines: 90

On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> business of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>>>>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course there is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
>>>>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
>>>>>>>>> DDD terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no 
>>>>>>>> counter example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
>>>>>>> for halt decider H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by 
>>>>>> the input when directly run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is 
>>>> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D)
>>> can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior
>>> that you expect.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID.
>>
>> That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the 
>> Halting Function is just uncomputable.
>>
> 
> I am not saying there is no mapping from the question
> to the correct answer.
> 
> 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.

Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the 
machine their input describes, in this case D(D).

So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, and 
what problem you have been working on.

That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives to 
lie about things.