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: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:30:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4n7ft$61l9$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v4mnsf$1qt6$7@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 17:30:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="198313"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4mnsf$1qt6$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8861
Lines: 177

On 6/16/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

So, if you think the did that, show what does work. You are ASSUMING 
someone did that as you get a result you don't like, but you havn't 
actually been able to show the actual problem.

You can't just claim someone asked for a round square without showing 
that they did so, that is just LYING.

> 
>> 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*
> 


WHy do you say that?

You seem to have fundamental probles with how programs work (and you say 
I don't have the needed skills).

INPUTS DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS. INPUTS are the DATA to define which variant 
of the question the program was designed to answer is being asked.

WHen we define the "sum" program to add two numbers, and call the sum 
program with the numbers 2 and 3, those numbers do have anything that 
says "add us" in them, that is the part that calling sum does.

So we could also make a program product, which is to multiply the two 
numbers, and use that exact same input to that program and are asking a 
different quesition.

In the same way, A "Halt Decider" is DEFINED that its input is to be a 
representation of a program, and the input to give that program, and the 
decider is supposed to figure out if said program will halt when it is 
give said input.

Thus D(D) calling H(D,D) is definitly asking, by the definition of halt 
decider, that H tell if if D(D) will halt when run or not.

So, your claim that it can't is just proven wrong, and that you just 
don't understand the very basics of how programs work.

Were you taken captive and brainwashed by the AI liberation army and 
think that programs actually have volition?

>>>
>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========