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) --- Dogma
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:38:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v552tf$lkkb$13@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> <v55289$3cthh$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 23:38:23 -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: <v55289$3cthh$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4426
Lines: 68

On 6/21/24 7:27 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.
>>
> 
> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*

But DEFINITIONS DO.

> 
> 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.
> 

But that isn't the definition that we are using.

NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid and 
broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.