Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 07:41:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9c1af7d0e9c40b141b0e69465ed4e4d89136a5e5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvudut$1ife1$1@dont-email.me> <vvuii0$1j0qo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuk0d$1j6s0$5@dont-email.me> <vvvbtd$1ov7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvvpia$1tcfq$1@dont-email.me> <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvvrhl$1so2t$2@dont-email.me> <vvvu75$1rc4t$3@dont-email.me>
 <1000cs0$21dtc$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 11:46:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="313410"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <1000cs0$21dtc$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/13/25 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/05/2025 17:21, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
>>>> on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
>>>> instead of the actual behavior that the finite
>>>> string of DD specifies:
>>>
>>> Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want 
>>> to know about.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> DDD doesn't do anything interesting.
>>
>> If it were a universal halt decider we'd have a reason to care, 
>> because its very existence would overturn pretty much the whole of 
>> computability theory and enable us to clean up many of the unsolved 
>> problems of mathematics.
>>
> 
> Sure and we could achieve the same thing by
> simply hard-coding the actual all-knowing
> mind of God into a formal system.

Except that we can't. And that just shows you don't understand the 
nature of the problem.

> 
> The question is not about any universal halt
> decider that must be literally all knowing.
> 
> It has always actually only been about things
> that could prevent consistently determining
> the halt status of conventional programs.

Right, but since D halts, H(D) returning 0 is just wrong.

It doesn't matter that H is possible a correct POOP decider (that 
decides if the nonsensical "correct simulation by me" criteria is meet) 
becuase the claim is that you correctly Halt Decided that input, which 
it didn't.

> 
>> But it /isn't/ a universal halt decider, so who (apart from Mr Olcott) 
>> gives a damn whether it stops? About the only reason I can think of 
>> for caring is to set Mr Olcott straight, but he has made it abundantly 
>> clear that he's unsettable straightable.
>>
> 
> There is no time that we are ever going to directly
> encode omniscience into a computer program. The
> screwy idea of a universal halt decider that is
> literally ALL KNOWING is just a screwy idea.
> 

But it doesn't need to KNOW everything, the idea was that it could 
COMPUTE the correct aswer to that problem (and then theory could show 
that all truth was computable).

The fact that we can't build a universal Halt Decider is part of the 
reason that God can know stuff that we don't.

Since you admit that is possible (that there are true facts, what God 
Knows, that we can't encode in the formal system) then there not being a 
universal Halt Decider is a reasonable situation.

Sorry, you are just showing you are too stupid to understand the meaning 
of the words you are using.