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: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:12:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <v56ijs$3or0r$5@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$1@dont-email.me> <v56hs2$onl3$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:12:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="3959835"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Yl7zpqtOc3f5eAoZWYUZi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MDaBfY4PrwLx4qzdINBdEUFCBF8=
In-Reply-To: <v56hs2$onl3$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7316

On 6/22/2024 7:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting 
> Problem.
> 
> So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the 
> ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new 
> Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares 
> about.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the 
> "Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
> 
> It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be 
> actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct 
> Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate 
> the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the 
> effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT "Correct 
> x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
> 
> The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the 
> simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in 
> this case is to return 0.
> 
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It 
> might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its 
> input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever,  but 
> it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.

It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
this call DOES NOT RETURN.

It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
this call DOES RETURN.

I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.


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