Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 20:54:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me>
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> <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 03:54:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2027951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VfldRLbZ+PR6J6yI8rw1W"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tIGacSw0Pj700d4yc3ZDlXZbk+8=
In-Reply-To: <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5638

On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.

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

This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down
version for people that do not really understand these things.

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

All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid
to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means.

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

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer