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,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 22:02:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4lh41$3n5c$4@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> <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> <v4l8pg$3m8b0$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4l9pi$3n5d$5@i2pn2.org> <v4lchu$3n4dj$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4le7v$3n5d$7@i2pn2.org> <v4lfp3$3rfk3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 02:02:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="122028"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4lfp3$3rfk3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5169
Lines: 81

On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there 
>>>> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider 
>>>> is supposed to decide on. PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks.
>>> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority.
>>
> 
> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
> 

Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system.

When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, 
we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon 
the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers.

Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms.

>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the 
>> definition of that system).
> 
>