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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite
 sting transformations
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:27:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4g9qn$3tn6r$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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 02:27:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4119771"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4equn$28g4v$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5988
Lines: 110

On 6/13/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a
>>>>>>>>>> UTM.
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is
>>>>>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> So, H isn't a Halt Decider?
>>>>>> 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 THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
>> H answers the wrong question.
>>>> How do you say that?
>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior of the directly
>>>>> executed D(D).
>>>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>>> H must compute question that it is being asked.
>> 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.

No, but there programmer can, and that is who created H.

> 
> H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive
> the behavior that it must report on.

Right, which *IS* (by the definition of a Halt decider) the behavior of 
the directly executed machine the input represents.

> 
> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.

Right, because that *IS* the definition of summig.

So, YOU trying to claim that H(D,D) can report on the "correct 
simulation by H" is EXACTLY like saying sum(3,4) can report on 5+6.

> 
> H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H
> EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.

WHere do you get that form?

It seems, from the POOP up your ass.

I guess you are just admitting that you can't understand the English 
statement of the problem

> 
> 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.

H doesn't "believe" anything, it is just an antomaton and does what it 
is programmed to do. Since you were the programmer, I guess you are just 
admitting you do understand the definition of the problem you started 20 
years ago.

So sorry you wasted so much time.

> 
> 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).

So? Who said there had to be?

After all, the full question is does there exist such a path. So, you 
just statement that you agree with the statement you have been trying to 
disprove for so long.

Doesn't that feel a bit silly to you?

> 
>>> 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.
>>
>