Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 22:55:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 05:55:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="020d44455d70acf7231aebb6a85d124b"; logging-data="3474205"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PfNGcbe5B7D+bCtwI0HAN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:49WHxi3pmmnqzs3MYqh+VaHyAJM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7335 On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/14/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/14/2024 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/14/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/14/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/14/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/14/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is more than that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H cannot even be asked the question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does D(D) halt? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you just don't understand the proper meaning of "ask" >>>>>>>>>>>>> when applied to a deterministic entity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each >>>>>>>>>>>> other then H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>> of D(D). H1(D,D) has no such pathological relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OF course it is. The nature of the input doesn't affet the >>>>>>>>>>> form of the question that H is supposed to answer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The textbook asks the question. >>>>>>>>>> The data cannot possibly do that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the data doesn't need to do it, as the program >>>>>>>>> specifictions define it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", >>>>>>>>> then we would need to somehow "encode" the goal of H >>>>>>>>> determining that a correct (and complete) simulation of its >>>>>>>>> input would need to reach a final state, but I see no issue >>>>>>>>> with defining a way to encode that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You already said that H cannot possibly map its >>>>>>>>>> input to the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right, it is impossible for H to itself compute that behavior >>>>>>>>> and give an answer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We need to stay focused on this one single point until you >>>>>>>>>> fully get it. Unlike the other two respondents you do have >>>>>>>>>> the capacity to understand this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You keep expecting H to read your computer science >>>>>>>>>> textbooks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I expect its PROGRAMMER to have done that, which clearly >>>>>>>>> you haven't done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions >>>>>>>>> they were programmed to do, and if the program is correct, it >>>>>>>>> will get the right answer. If it doesn't get the right answer, >>>>>>>>> then the programmer erred in saying it meet the requirements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am only going to talk to you in the one thread about >>>>>>>> this, it is too difficult material to understand outside >>>>>>>> of a single chain of thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What, you can't keep the different topic straight? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is probably too difficult for anyone to understand outside >>>>>> of a single thread of thought. It has taken me twenty years >>>>>> of rehashing the same material until I gradually got deeper >>>>>> and deeper insights. >>>>>> >>>>>> *THIS IS WHAT HAS KEPT ME GOING FOR TWENTY YEARS* >>>>>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is >>>>>> correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth >>>>>> itself cannot possibly be fundamentally broken it must be >>>>>> fallible human understanding of truth that is actually broken. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe YOUR idea of truth is broken, but not truth itself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The really weird (and very good) part of this is that your >>>> understanding of these things beats at least half of the >>>> experts in truthmaker theory. I have looked at a dozen papers. >>>> >>>> Explain how an expression of language can be true when >>>> literally no thing makes it true. This is the one that half >>>> of the experts are totally clueless about. >>>> >>>> Cats are animals is made true by its definition. >>>> >>> >>> Because the "thing" that makes it true is OUTSIDE the system of >>> interest, >> >> THAT IS NOT NO THING, bzzztt Wrong Answer !!! >> > > But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system FAILS > by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in fact, can shpw > that ANYTHING is true. > bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow colored elephant in my living room right now. > So, I guess we know how good your logic system is. > > All your crasy ideas are true, because everything is true, we can even > PROVE that there was wholesale election interfearance with massive fraud. > > This just goes to your not understand how the infinite works. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer