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 08:12:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <v56iks$3or0r$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v52mil$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>
 <v55k3f$3jl81$1@dont-email.me> <v56i37$onl3$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:13:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="3959835"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zzodEXFCAovLOT/i/Hjjd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XEDCOpu70o0xnEyOeytrVrNWFgI=
In-Reply-To: <v56i37$onl3$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6146

On 6/22/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the 
> decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a 
> mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
> 
> (input, decider) -> (output)
> 
> Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
> 
> So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
> 
> Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you 
> need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being asked 
> to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective, and thus 
> not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.

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