Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 21:24:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4g65a$3tn6q$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> <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>
 <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me> <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me> <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:24:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4119770"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 15025
Lines: 312

On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You admitted that it didn't produce the "Correct Simulation" output 
>>>> that it was supposed to produce.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was never supposed to produce this.
>>> As I explain on page five of this other 2021 paper.
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>
>> But acting as a "pure simulator until ..." is NOT the same as acting 
>> as a pure simulator.
>>
>> And thus the "transform" is invalid, as shown by the fact that P(P) 
>> halts even though H(P,P) uses its logic to say that it doesn't.
>>
>> Thus, your "logic" introduces a FALSE premise into its logic, and thus 
>> its conclusion is INVALID.
>>
>> Can you show an ACTUAL accepted statement that says you are allowed to 
>> do that transform, or is this just another of your "it seems right, so 
>> I will assume it to be right" statements that just makes your logic 
>> wrong.
>>
>> Your logic is just subject to the power of the paradox.
>>
>>>
>>>> The output wasn't the simulation it did, but the execution trace of 
>>>> your decider itself.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It takes the input, and TRIES to process them to the answer 
>>>> corresponding to the mapping it is supposed to be computing.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, ALL programs the meet the very basic definition of a decider 
>>>> (giving an answer for all possible input) computes SOME mapping of 
>>>> the input ot the output (which provides the count of the number of 
>>>> possible mappings that are computable). So H is some sort of decider,
>>>>
>>>> But to be a decider for a specific function, it needs to compute the 
>>>> mapping that matches that function. So, A Halt Decider, to be a HALT 
>>>> decider, needs to generate the exact same mapping as the Halting 
>>>> mathematical function, which is defined in terms of the behavior of 
>>>> the machine represented by the input.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be just totally beyond your understanding, that there 
>>>> are actual REQUIREMENTS that must be met for something to be "Correct".
>>>>
>>>> Note, the word *THE* in your phrase meens a specific simgular 
>>>> mapping, that is the mapping defined by the function it is named for.
>>>>
>>>> Your H computes *A* mapping, but not the Halting Function mapping. 
>>>> And the exact details of that mapping is a function of the decider 
>>>> you create to try to compute it, as H and H1 generate different 
>>>> answers for the D built on H (and for the D1 built on H1). Thus your 
>>>> "POOP" mapping is different for each H you want to ask about, so in 
>>>> one sense, isn't even a correct question to be asking.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't asking about the decider deciding on the behavior of the 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========