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
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:38:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v52p32$jund$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4g6vr$2ic0g$1@dont-email.me> <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me> <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me> <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me> <v4hp3r$3viml$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hv85$3021v$1@dont-email.me> <v4ju8f$222a$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4k1m4$3f99u$1@dont-email.me> <v4k4mt$3fnqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4maeo$3vv3f$1@dont-email.me> <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me> <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me> <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v52mil$jund$6@i2pn2.org> <v52n3h$2v5s6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:38:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="654061"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v52n3h$2v5s6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4955
Lines: 80

On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.
>>>>
>>>>> I really don't care what you believe.
>>>>> It is not about belief.
>>>>> It is about correct reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
>>>> reasoning is correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way
>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it
>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking
>>> for an error and finding none.
>>
>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual
>>
>>>
>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong
>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes
>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient
>>> technical competence.
>>>
>>
>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS.
>>
> 
> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the
> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong.
> 
> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God*
> 


Why do you say it can not be "mapped"

Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider are 
supposed to use, as

(D,D) -> Halting

Is a perfectly valid mapping.

Your problem is you keep on trying to LIE by trying to change the 
meaning of the words, probalby because you just don't understand the 
actual meaning because you have forced yourself to be stupid about them 
by not actually studing them.

YOU are not "God" either, but the textbooks do quote the "words of 
'God'" in the sense that the creators of the fields are the 'Gods' of 
the field that define what things in the field mean.

And, when you defy the words of 'God', you get cast out of 'heaven', 
which here means you logic just fails to be applicable.

If you want, you can create your own field and be the 'God' of it, but 
then you need to convince people to come to your world.

The 'faithful' of the existing system, who know the actual meaning of 
the words, will be there to expose your lies when you try to convince 
people that your world is just like the actual one that people know.

So, all you are doing is publicly admitting that you are defying the 
authorative definitioin of things in the system, because you just don't 
like them.

And, just ike the ACTUAL GOD of this universe, who created it and 
everything in it, decides what the rules are, and if you choose to not 
believe him, will cast you out at the time of judging, when you refuse 
the rules of the field of logic, you find yourself cast out the them, 
with nothing to stand on.