| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4gc3j$3tn6r$7@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- rewritten Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:06:27 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v4gc3j$3tn6r$7@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> <v4dkp0$3qbnd$7@i2pn2.org> <v4dlac$225kb$2@dont-email.me> <v4dm13$3qbnc$10@i2pn2.org> <v4dmlu$22cmj$2@dont-email.me> <v4dnrp$3qbnd$9@i2pn2.org> <v4dotf$22o4a$3@dont-email.me> <v4dq7g$3qbnc$13@i2pn2.org> <v4dr86$2379j$2@dont-email.me> <v4el9k$3rsd6$2@i2pn2.org> <v4esmp$28g4v$8@dont-email.me> <v4g9c3$3tn6q$3@i2pn2.org> <v4g9hf$2mnuk$1@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 03:06:27 -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 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v4g9hf$2mnuk$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 6760 Lines: 126 On 6/13/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, >>>>>>>>>>>> they just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>> by H. >>>>>>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of >>>>>>>>> D(D). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>>>>>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be >>>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem >>>>>>>> description tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to >>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >>>>>>> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >>>>>>> mean to you in your own words? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were >>>>>> programmed to do on the data. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Simplistic. >>>>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>>>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>>>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >>>> >>>> No, it does not. >>>> >>>> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >>>> >>> The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine >>> the behavior of D(D). >> >> So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, >> >> The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H >> can use itself. >> >>> >>> I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines >>> the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know >>> that I am correct. >> >> And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. >> >> I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are >> stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. >> >>> >>> H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show >>> otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. >>> >> >> But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input >> to H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). >> >> Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code >> for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all >> comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program >> can use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then >> do the opposite. >> >> This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, >> because the power of the computation system grows faster than the >> ability to decide on the computation. > > See my prior reply > If you mean the one in this thread about an hour or so ago, that doesn't actualy prove your goal that H can be a correct Halt Decider, just that you don't understand what that means.