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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v4g6vr$2ic0g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org> <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org> <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ha63$3v16r$2@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 15:15:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e98c84ba8c24dba675dc413b0edf993a";
	logging-data="3028827"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cDvEAJ9PNyUUVEt4zvvj5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j67U8k1/UrcKhUBchs88cztOUEA=
In-Reply-To: <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8679

On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means that H cannot even be asked the question:
>>>>>> "Does D halt on its input?"
>>>>>
>>>>> WHy not? After all, H does what it does, the PERSON we ask is the 
>>>>> programmer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other*
>>>> There is no way to encode any H such that it can be asked:
>>>> Does D(D) halt?
>>>
>>> Which just pproves that Halting is non-computable.
>>>
>>
>> No it is more than that.
>> H cannot even be asked the question:
>> Does D(D) halt?
> 
> No, you just don't understand the proper meaning of "ask" when applied 
> to a deterministic entity.
> 

When H and D have a pathological relationship to each
other then H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior
of D(D). H1(D,D) has no such pathological relationship
thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the behavior of D(D).

If I ask you: What time is it?
and my actual unstated question is:
What is the outside temperature where you are?

Can a correct answer to the stated question be
a correct answer to the unstated question?

H(D,D) is not even being asked about the behavior of D(D)

>>
>> You already admitted the basis for this.
> 
> No, that is something different.
> 
>>
>>> You keep on doing that, Making claims that show the truth of the 
>>> statement you are trying to disprove.
>>> The fact you don't undrstand that, just show how little you 
>>> understand what you are saying.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You must see this from the POV of H or you won't get it.
>>>> H cannot read your theory of computation textbooks, it
>>>> only knows what it directly sees, its actual input.
>>>
>>> But H doesn't HAVE a "poimt of view".
>>>
>>
>> When H is a simulating halt decider you can't even ask it
>> about the behavior of D(D). You already said that it cannot
>> map its input to the behavior of D(D). That means that you
>> cannot ask H(D,D) about the behavior of D(D).
> 
> OF course you can, becaue, BY DEFIINITION, that is the ONLY thing it 
> does with its inputs.
> 

That definition might be in textbooks,
yet H does not and cannot read textbooks.

The only definition that H sees is the combination of
its algorithm with the finite string of machine language
of its input.

It is impossible to encode any algorithm such that H and D
have a pathological relationship and have H even see the
behavior of D(D).

You already admitted there there is no mapping from the finite
string of machine code of the input to H(D,D) to the behavior
of D(D).

>>
>> What seems to me to be the world's leading termination
>> analyzer symbolically executes its transformed input.
>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf
>>
>> It takes C programs and translates them into something like
>> generic assembly language and then symbolically executes them
>> to form a directed graph of their behavior. x86utm and HH do
>> something similar in a much more limited fashion.
> 
> And note, it only gives difinitive answers for SOME input.
> 

It is my understanding is that it does this much better than
anyone else does. AProVE "symbolically executes the LLVM program".
The LLVM program is essentially the C program translated into
a generic assembly language.

>>
>>> H is just a "mechanical" computation. It is a rote algorithm that 
>>> does what it has been told to do.
>>>
>>
>> H cannot be asked the question Does DD(D) halt?
>> There is no way to encode that. You already admitted
>> this when you said the finite string input to H(D,D)
>> cannot be mapped to the behavior of D(D).
> 
> It is every time it is given an input, at least if H is a halt decider.
> 

If you cannot even ask H the question that you want answered then
this is not an actual case of undecidability. H does correctly
answer the actual question that it was actually asked.

> That is what halt deciders (if they exist) do.
> 

When H and D are defined to have a pathological relationship
then H cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D).

>>
>>> It really seems likem you just don't understand the concept of 
>>> deterministic automatons, and Willful beings as being different.
>>>
>>> Which just shows how ignorant you are about what you talk about.
>>>
>>
>> The issue is that you don't understand truthmaker theory.
>> You can not simply correctly wave your hands to get H to know
>> what question is being asked.
> 
> No, YOU don't understand Truth.
> 

You understand truthmaker theory better than most experts in the field.
The best expert in the field is only pretty sure that the Liar Paradox
is not true.

>>
>>>>
>>>> If there is no possible way for H to transform its input
>>>> into the behavior of D(D) then H cannot be asked about
>>>> the behavior of D(D).
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========