Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,alt.crackpot
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite
 sting transfermentations
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4f8uj$3smqv$1@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> <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v4ck2c$1o4b4$2@dont-email.me> <v4d9gt$3qbnc$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v4daoq$1sioe$2@dont-email.me> <v4dbun$3qbnc$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v4df07$1te0b$1@dont-email.me> <v4dfsu$3qbnd$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v4dhuk$1tsdf$3@dont-email.me> <v4diet$3qbnc$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v4dj9i$1tsdf$5@dont-email.me> <v4e9l5$3rbs4$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v4equn$28g4v$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4086623"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4924
Lines: 74

Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
>>>>>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
>>>>>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
>> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?

>>>>>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of
>>>>>>>> the machine represented by its input.
>>>>>>> *H is not even being asked that question*
>> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
Why would we ask a machine "What is your own result?"?

>>>>>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does
>>>>>> the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
>> H answers the wrong question.
It answers "I give this result, because I say so". The opposite were
equally valid.

>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing the
>>>>> mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified by
>>>>> this finite string input.
>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything?
>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit.
>> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.

>>> H must compute question that it is being asked.
If H doesn't, it is not what we are looking for.
>> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
> Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption that
> they do is ridiculously false.
Of course not. Ridiculous is your assumption that I wasn't talking about
its specification.

> H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive the
> behavior that it must report on.
The behaviour of D(D) itself doesn't change by whatever H does.

> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
Yes, and sum {return x*y} is a faulty implementation. Why would I expect
otherwise?

> H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H EVEN
> IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
It must provide the halt status, whether simulated by anything or not.
A simulation that changes it is called wrong.

> You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of
> D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
Then I don't care about H. I want my H to report on D(D).

> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
Which is why a halt decider is impossible.

>>> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT
>>> MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
>> Then H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
The H that violates the specification is not the true H.

-- 
joes