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) V3
 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 18:40:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <v4l8pg$3m8b0$3@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> <v4kh6a$3hugj$4@dont-email.me>
 <v4kial$2219$10@i2pn2.org> <v4kjkr$3iid3$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4klb4$2219$12@i2pn2.org> <v4ko32$3jfm0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4l7aq$3n5c$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 01:40:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476";
	logging-data="3875168"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kNKZfTI54WIWGhiWbEPHU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TCUjOcuB5QGtmW2+4Syx9qINkkM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4l7aq$3n5c$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5766

On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input
>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and
>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you
>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, 
>>>>
>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE*
>>>
>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove 
>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why?
>>>
>>
>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not
>> being asked about the behavior of D(D).
> 
> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H 
> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the 
> Halting Problem.
> 

You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that
deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what
you think that this input should mean.

>>
>> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption
>> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified?
> 
> I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider.
> 
> 
> I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years.
> 
> I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out 
> that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting 
> the definition of a Halt Decider.
> 
>>
>>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that
>>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know
>>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct.
>>>
>>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has 
>>> NOTHING to do with the problem, 
>>
>> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete
>> instance of the problem.
> 
> Nope, You just admitted it doesn't.
> 
> Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program 
> described by the input. 

I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn
or ignorant to comprehend this.

> By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is 
> supposed to be asking H to decide on D(D).
> 

Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even
understand how it could be possible does not change you
religious conviction that I must be wrong.

> If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been 
> working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it.
> 

When I correct false assumptions that others have had
about the halting problem that does not mean that I am
not working on the halting problem.

When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical
that does not mean that they were not working on the shape
of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer