Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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,comp.ai.philosophy
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 20:42:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v4lfu5$3rfk3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v4kf3h$3h3iu$7@dont-email.me> <v4kfoa$2218$19@i2pn2.org>
 <v4l2mr$3l6pa$1@dont-email.me> <v4l6gg$3n5d$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4l87j$3m8b0$2@dont-email.me> <v4l8jn$3n5d$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4la7d$3m8b0$4@dont-email.me> <v4lan7$3n5c$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4lcoo$3n4dj$3@dont-email.me> <v4leiq$3n5d$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:42:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476";
	logging-data="4046467"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/v/4ElrQScAmAMwHKNswKJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eXFQNORKPQKb36XhNRp+teHMkf0=
In-Reply-To: <v4leiq$3n5d$8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6364

On 6/15/2024 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:22 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions
>>>>>>>>>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06]
>>>>>>>>>> are simulated/executed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges
>>>>>>>>>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D
>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, the steps of D correctly simulated by H will EXACTLY 
>>>>>>>>> match the steps of D directly executed, until H just gives up 
>>>>>>>>> and guesses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> reach its simulated final state at machine address [00000d1d]
>>>>>>>> after one recursive simulation and the same applies for 2,3,...N
>>>>>>>> recursive simulations then we can abort the simulated input and
>>>>>>>> correctly report that D correctly simulated by H DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Because an aborted simulation doesn't say anything about 
>>>>>>> Halting,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the mathematical induction that says this.
>>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT "Mathematical Induction"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base
>>>> case, proves the statement for n = 0 without assuming any knowledge
>>>> of other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that
>>>> if the statement holds for any given case n = k then it must also
>>>> hold for the next case n = k + 1 These two steps establish that the
>>>> statement holds for every natural number n.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
>>>
>>> Ok, so you can parrot to words.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is true that after one recursive simulation of D correctly
>>>> simulated by H that D does not reach its simulated final state
>>>> at machine address [00000d1d].
>>>
>>> Which means you consider that D has been bound to that first H, so 
>>> you have instruciton to simulate in the call H.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *We directly see this is true for every N thus no assumption needed*
>>>> It is true that after N recursive simulations of D correctly
>>>> simulated by H that D does not reach its simulated final state
>>>> at machine address [00000d1d].
>>>
>>> Nope, because to do the first step, you had to bind the definition of 
>>> the first H to D, and thus can not change it.
>>
>> So infinite sets are permanently beyond your grasp.
>> The above D simulated by any H has the same property
>> of never reaching its own simulated machine address
>> at [00000d1d].
>>
>> What I mistook for dishonestly is simply a lack
>> of comprehension.
>>
> 
> 
> But it isn't an infinite set.
> 

Sure it is you are just clueless.
I mistook your ignorance for deception.

> We don't ask an infinite set a question, or give a decider an infinite 
> set of inputs.
> 

Yes we do and this is simply over your head.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

The second ⊢* wildcard specifies this infinite set.

> We can pose the same question to an infinite set of machines, but we 
> judge each of them individually.
> 
> I thought you finally caught on that Linz is talking about taking *A* 
> Turing Machine H that is assumed to be a Halt Decider, and building for 
> it *AN* input H^ that he shows creates an impossible situation, so that 
> H could not exist.
> 
> You are just trying to obfuscate things by throwing in "infinte sets" 
> but we still need to process them each individually.
> 
> Yes, we can do that in parallel, but in individual problem units.

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