Path: ...!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 23:31:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <v55k3f$3jl81$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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$1@dont-email.me> <v55jl3$nhbb$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:31:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="3790081"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/p0axZPcZ5NSTtldHQZ1qi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F97XnPvLDBa6D9zPBh+f1lz4O08=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v55jl3$nhbb$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4771

On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
> 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.
> 

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   H0(DDD);
   H1(DDD);
}

DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.


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