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) ---
 Boilerplate Reply
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:52:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v54eko$lkkb$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <v52p32$jund$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v52pht$2vh9u$1@dont-email.me> <v52qat$jund$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v52s4l$2vlma$1@dont-email.me> <v52td1$june$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v52tul$307ee$1@dont-email.me> <v5435h$lkkb$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v54bcf$38n2k$1@dont-email.me> <v54buj$lkkc$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v54cia$38n2k$3@dont-email.me> <v54d41$lkkc$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v54dqe$394bf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:52:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="709259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v54dqe$394bf$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5352
Lines: 93

On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002093] 55               push ebp
>>>>> [00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
>>>>> [000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>> [000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>> [000020a4] c3               ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to 
>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't 
>>>> need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>
>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>
>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping that 
>> we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping must be 
>> computable.
>>
> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
> 
> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.

Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi

> 
> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
> science textbooks.

And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.

The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and then 
design the program to give the right answer.

Remember, programs are just deterministic tool that do exactly as they 
are programmed, they have NO understanding of what they do. it is the 
PROGRAMMER that created them (or assigned a given program to a task) 
that needs to understand what is needed an make sure the right program 
is assinged to the task.

So, one of your fundamental issues is you don't understand what a 
program actually is.

> 
> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
> Can map (3,4) to 7.
> Cannot map(3,4) to 37.
> 
> H(D,D) can map D correctly simulated by H to recursive simulation.
> H(D,D) cannot map D correctly simulated by H to termination.
> 

But is SUPPOSED to map the input by the Halting function Halts(D,D) 
which answers by looking at the behavior of the machine D(D).

Your H answers the wrong questions, just as a "sum" problem that had the 
code:

int sum(int x, int y) { return x * y; }

It uses the same input, but computes the wrong mapping. It isn't the 
programs fault, it just did as it was programmed, but it was the 
programmers fault for not understanding the requirements.