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 18:58:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v550ip$lkkc$15@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v54eko$lkkb$7@i2pn2.org> <v54g5b$394bf$3@dont-email.me>
 <v54hhp$lkkb$9@i2pn2.org> <v54i77$39s3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <v54iul$lkkc$9@i2pn2.org> <v54jo6$3a7vo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v54kik$lkkb$10@i2pn2.org> <v54l91$3a7vo$3@dont-email.me>
 <v54m58$lkkc$12@i2pn2.org> <v54p66$3b4at$1@dont-email.me>
 <v54q7i$lkkc$13@i2pn2.org> <v54r4g$3bg8o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v54scd$lkkb$11@i2pn2.org> <v54vp8$3cgv7$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 22:58:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="709260"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v54vp8$3cgv7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5798
Lines: 99

On 6/21/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) 
>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least 
>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 
>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>
>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if 
>>>> it is one.
>>>>
>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>    That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>
>> What "False Assumption"?
>>
>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>
> 
> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*

Nope. You can't change the definitions.

If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you need 
to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your alternate 
definition for your new thing as what will be considered as the 
"standard thing".

This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and 
Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new 
default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.

Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar 
level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that 
people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You 
need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard Computation 
Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even just 
Olcott-Halting).

Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a 
given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it not 
suitable as a property for most uses.


> 
> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
> fact that they do differ.

Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong 
with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that you 
can provide, your statement is just false.

> 
> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
> 

Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
PERIOD.

You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.