Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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 19:38:23 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:38:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="709259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4426 Lines: 68 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.