Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:39:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 218
Message-ID: <v4g6vr$2ic0g$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>
 <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> <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 03:39:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e98c84ba8c24dba675dc413b0edf993a";
	logging-data="2699280"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186cfGIbkMGNq/ZoOU+f9Q9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F2ZL8l3yrtJMqUwzDCPdmYsUwG8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10734

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========