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: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
 ---Boilerplate Reply
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:39:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v54hcs$lkkb$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
 <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v5415i$lkkc$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v543k2$376u3$1@dont-email.me> <v5460r$lkkc$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v54br6$38n2k$2@dont-email.me> <v54c3r$lkkc$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v54crs$38n2k$4@dont-email.me> <v54dur$lkkc$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v54er3$394bf$2@dont-email.me> <v54f42$lkkc$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v54gdo$394bf$4@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 18:39:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="709259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v54gdo$394bf$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3675
Lines: 59

On 6/21/24 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 1:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 12:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When there is no mapping from the finite string x86 machine
>>>>> language input to H(D,D) to the  behavior of D(D) then
>>>>> H(D,D) IS NOT being asked about the behavior of D(D).
>>>>
>>>> But there *IS* a mapping, it just isn't a COMPUTABLE MAPPING.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If there is a mapping yet not a computable mapping then
>>> the actual halt decider cannot even see the question that
>>> the textbooks expect it to see.
>>
>> But a decider doesn't "See" the question. it just computes the result 
>> it was programmed to give.
>>
> 
> It must be the behavior that the input finite string actually specifies.
> It cannot be the behavior that the programmer imagines that it specifies.
> 

But strings don't "have" behavior, or even "specify" behavior by 
themselves, the behavior comes from applying the string to the 
DEFINITION of the problem.

For instance "2,3" doesn't tell you what to do with those numbers, but 
you need to know the PROBLEM it is being applied to.

If you are talking of the Halting Problem, then the DEFINIED behavior, 
is that of the machine the input is a representation of.

Now, the programmer needs to understand the specification of the 
problem, and not just do what you are doing an trying to imagine some 
alternate problem. Remember, programs don't understand the problem, but 
just blindly do the computation given to them. The programmer needs to 
ultimately connect a given program to the problem it is to try to solve.


>> You don't seem to understand what a program is. Maybe you are just a 
>> badly trained AI that was never trained on computer theory.
>>
>>>
>>> This is not the same thing as the inability to correctly
>>> answer this question. This is something brand new that has
>>> never been thought of before.
>>>
>>
>> Right, you are just proving you have no idea about what programming is 
>> about.
>>
>> sorry, you are just to stupid to understand.
>>
>> Maybe it has never been though of before as it is so based on false 
>> ideas that no one has ever been that lost in their logic.
>