Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 22:24:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v4dop4$22o4a$2@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>
 <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me> <v4dn5u$3qbnd$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 05:24:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="2187402"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gALGJ012fPuoah04+OnXB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:agQKlwXQOV2JG3MGBFc+Ja3xwkY=
In-Reply-To: <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5090

On 6/12/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> So?
> 
> Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said that 
> didn't apply.
> 
> It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it 
> can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want.
> 

I never said anything like that.

> Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as it 
> does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that D(D) 
> will not return?
> 
> You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the same 
> error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that "Correct" 
> any more, as that would be a LIE.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
> 
> I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it must 
> be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an accepted 
> truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE.
> 
> That's par for the course.
> 
> That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for claiming it.
> 
>>
>> 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?
> 
> They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out.
> 
> Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their instuctions 
> given to them.
> 
> You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs do you.
> 
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own unsubstantiated 
> claims based on wrong defintions.
> 

*COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS*
Is currently totally over-your-head
yet has a specific meaning using those terms
according to their conventional meanings.

Tell me in your own words what you think
COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS means.

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