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.