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
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:27:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4ijle$kqh$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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>
 <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me> <v4hp3r$3viml$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hv85$3021v$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 23:27:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="21329"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4hv85$3021v$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9788
Lines: 195

On 6/14/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>> 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).
>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the
>> (right) answer for every input.
> 
> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided
> anything because every human has made at least one mistake.

But Humans are NOT deciders in the Computation Theory sense, because we 
don't run deterministic algorithms.

This seems to be part of your fundamental problem, yiu just don't know 
what you are talking about, and don't understand the difference between 
willful beings, and deterministic algorithms.


> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term
> partial halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people.
> A partial halt decider is a halt decider with a limited domain.
> 
>> D by construction is pathological to the supposed decider it is
>> constructed on. H1 can not decide D1. For every "decider" we can 
>> construct
>> an undecidable pathological program. No decider decides every input.
>>
> 
> Parroting what you memorized by rote is not very deep understanding.
> 
> Understanding that the halting problem counter-example input that
> does the opposite of whatever value the halt decider returns is
> merely the Liar Paradox in disguise is a much deeper understanding.
> 
>>> 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)
>  >
>> It can't be asked any other way.
>>
> It can't be asked in any way what-so-ever because it is
> already being asked a different question.
> 
>>>>> 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 DEFINITION, that is the ONLY thing it
>>>> does with its inputs.
>>> That definition might be in textbooks,
>>> yet H does not and cannot read textbooks.
>  >
>> That is very confusing. H still adheres to textbooks.
>>
> No the textbooks have it incorrectly.
> 
>>> The only definition that H sees is the combination of its algorithm with
>>> the finite string of machine language of its input.
> 
>> H does not see its own algorithm, it only follows its internal
>> programming. A machine and input completely determine the behaviour,
>> whether that is D(D) or H(D, D).
>>
> 
> No H (with a pathological relationship to D) can possibly see the 
> behavior of D(D).
> 
>>> 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).
>  >
>> H literally gets it as input.
>>
> 
> The input DOES NOT SPECIFY THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D).
> The input specifies the behavior WITHIN THE PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
> It does not specify the behavior WITHOUT THE PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP.
> 
>>> 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).
>  >
>> Which means that H can't simulate D(D). Other machines can do so.
>>
> 
> H cannot simulate D(D) for the same reason that
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) cannot return the sum of 5 + 6;
> 
> 
>>>> 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".
>  >
>> Better doesn't cut it. H should work for ALL programs, especially for D.
>>
> 
> You don't even have a slight clue about termination analyzers.
> 
>>>>>> 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 D(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).
>  >
>> H answers that question for every other input.
>> The question "What is your answer/Is your answer right?" is pointless
>> and not even computed by H.
>>
> 
> It is ridiculously stupid to think that the pathological
> relationship between H and D cannot possibly change the
> behavior of D especially when it has been conclusively
> proven that it DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF 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.
>  >
>> D(D) is a valid input. H should be universal.
>>
> 
> Likewise the Liar Paradox *should* be true or false,
> except for the fact that it isn't.
> 
> 
>>>> 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).
>  >
>> H cannot give a correct ANSWER about D(D).
>>
> 
> H cannot be asked the right question.
> 
>>>>>> It really seems likem you just don't understand the concept of
>>>>>> deterministic automata, and Willful beings as being different.
>>>>> You can not simply correctly wave your hands to get H to know what
>>>>> question is being asked.
>> H doesn't need to know. It is programmed to answer a fixed question,
>> and the input completely determines the answer.
>>
> 
> The fixed question that H is asked is:
> Can your input terminate normally?
> The answer to that question is: NO.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========