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,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite
 string transformation rules
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 21:28:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4g6cb$3tn6q$2@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>
 <pan$530c9$d2237574$c10f0852$6b80374b@example.com>
 <v4eq8n$28g4v$3@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 01:28:44 -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: <v4eq8n$28g4v$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5646
Lines: 85

On 6/13/24 8:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:21:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>> What else could "pass a program and input to a halt decider" mean?
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>> AKA "I made it up".
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>> AKA "the machine is wrong".
>>
>>>> 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.
>> Namely, that halting is decidable.
>>
>>>> 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 untrue (false
>>>> or not having a truth value).
>>>> Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an
>>>> method to compute the answer.
>>
>>
> 
> To ask a halt decider to compute the halting function on an input
> you can't show it a page from a textbook. It cannot read your mind
> to see what you expect.

Why does the decider need to do that. That would be the job of the 
programmer who wrote the decider.

You seem to confuse the two. Maybe the problem is that you are just a 
program, or sold your soul for something, and that is all you have left.

> 
> H must compute the mapping from its finite string input by applying
> finite string transformation rules to these input finite string to
> derive the behavior that these finite strings specify.

Yes, that is all it CAN do, and if that isn't sufficent, the problem is 
just uncomputable.

> 
> For x86 input finite strings the transformation rules are anchored
> in the semantics of the x86 language.

Yes, and exactly match what happens when you run the program.

> 
> For Turing machine source-code input finite strings the transformation
> rules are anchored the Turing Machine description language.
> 

Yes, and exactly match the behavior of a UTM, which exactly match the 
behavior of running the machine.