Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 22:16:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v55fn7$3irer$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@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$1@dont-email.me> <v552tf$lkkb$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:16:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="3763675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/drWIwEVWy+t7OPA1FyV+u"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SJ+vxqk6hFPDIQV6LxSuRozaAHk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v552tf$lkkb$13@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5301

On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.

The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
behavior that D specifies to H1.

You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship 
that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
D between these two cases.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer