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 22:06:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@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> <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@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 02:06:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009708"; 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: <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6847
Lines: 136

On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

How is it a H

> 
>> 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.

Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your 
unverifiable false claims?

You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to 
show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your 
claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE.

> 
>> 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.
> 

And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H 
to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable.

Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a 
computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to have 
been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a way to 
compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems that were 
coming up in mathematics and logic.

There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that 
makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete 
(the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be 
proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth 
Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs unture (false 
or not having a truth value).

Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an 
method to compute the answer.

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