Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:24:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v55jl3$nhbb$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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> <v55fn7$3irer$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:24:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="771435"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4380
Lines: 60

Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:

>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> 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*
>> 
>> 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.
If H really is a decider, it returns.

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

> 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.
Unlikely.
Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.

> 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.
But D is the same in either case?!

> 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.
The behaviour changes only because of the called H.

-- 
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik 
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim