Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 21:21:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v4dl3b$225kb$1@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>
 <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me> <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 04:21:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2168459"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TdTh6ixQN6EwoWMLhP95W"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w/KfxPe8mYVJF/lKzR+HqkVR9z4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5262

On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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
> 

I gave you the source-code.

>>
>>> 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?
> 

Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head
does not make me incorrect.

How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that
they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook?

> 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.
> 

No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed.

>>
>>> 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.
> 

When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer
does not exist this is called an undecidable question.

When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist
this is a whole new issue that no one ever noticed before.

> 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.
> 

If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect
then your expectations were incorrect.

> 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).
> 

That you are having a hard time understanding this brand new
material is reasonable. The biggest problem with this is that
you are so sure that I must be incorrect that you hardly pay
any attention to what I say.

> 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.
>>
> 

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