Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 22:17:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4itis$kqh$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4ijlc$kqh$1@i2pn2.org> <v4injg$348ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4iraj$kqh$4@i2pn2.org> <v4isva$392jh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 02:17:00 -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: <v4isva$392jh$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4396
Lines: 68

On 6/14/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/14/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/14/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> OF course it is. The nature of the input doesn't affet the form of 
>>>> the question that H is supposed to answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The textbook asks the question.
>>> The data cannot possibly do that.
>>>
>>
>> But the data doesn't need to do it, as the program specifictions 
>> define it.
>>
>> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we 
>> would need to somehow "encode" the goal of H determining that a 
>> correct (and complete) simulation of its input would need to reach a 
>> final state, but I see no issue with defining a way to encode that.
>>
>>> You already said that H cannot possibly map its
>>> input to the behavior of D(D).
>>
>> Right, it is impossible for H to itself compute that behavior and give 
>> an answer.
>>
>> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>>
>>>
>>> We need to stay focused on this one single point until you
>>> fully get it. Unlike the other two respondents you do have
>>> the capacity to understand this.
>>>
>>> You keep expecting H to read your computer science
>>> textbooks.
>>>
>>
>> No, I expect its PROGRAMMER to have done that, which clearly you 
>> haven't done.
>>
>> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions they 
>> were programmed to do, and if the program is correct, it will get the 
>> right answer. If it doesn't get the right answer, then the programmer 
>> erred in saying it meet the requirements.
>>
> 
> I am only going to talk to you in the one thread about
> this, it is too difficult material to understand outside
> of a single chain of thought.
> 

What, you can't keep the different topic straight?