| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4mnsf$1qt6$7@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:04:15 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 140 Message-ID: <v4mnsf$1qt6$7@dont-email.me> References: <v45tec$4q15$1@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> <v4lh41$3n5c$4@i2pn2.org> <v4llqg$3sben$2@dont-email.me> <v4mj7k$3n5c$5@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 15:04:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476"; logging-data="60326"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/hcDD+7EHG7zv0xyVEI1NB" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:L53upEkKwno7kLAeLPqkG8iMbas= In-Reply-To: <v4mj7k$3n5c$5@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7377 On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices >> this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that >> definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. > > Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just > like that. > When someone defined a square as round and then tries to draw a round square they find out that the were wrong. > Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. > > Like was done with Naive Set Theory. > > But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and then > show you have a full replacement system available to ask people to try > to switch to, > > The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the > original system. > There is no way to build a simulating halt decider H that has an input D that calls H(D,D) where H(D,D) can even be asked the question Does the directly executed D(D) halt? *You might not be bright enough to understand this* >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that >> learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel >> and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what >> happened to Professor Hehner. > > Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like > your papa was. > >> >> Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. > > Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. > >> >>>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>>> definition of that system). >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer