Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106862 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 373 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 12:59 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 12:00 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:25 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 17:06 +0000
Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 12:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:34 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:24 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 20:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:04 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:14 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 23:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-14 15:54 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:34 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 15:33 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:24 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-16 12:15 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-17 10:10 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 07:51 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 10:44 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:46 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 18:36 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 10:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 19:27 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 11:36 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-19 11:07 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 08:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-20 08:04 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 00:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-20 17:42 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 10:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-20 16:16 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 11:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-21 10:05 +0200
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 21:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 22:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 21:46 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 22:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:42 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500
Re: Dogma -- other deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-22 12:08 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:58 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:22 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-21 10:16 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-22 14:06 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:39 +0200
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-25 15:04 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:51 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:16 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 11:41 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:58 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 10:36 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 18:35 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 11:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-27 17:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 12:25 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 16:21 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 11:05 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 11:30 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 13:04 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 11:10 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-25 16:41 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:09 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-14 08:38 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:34 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-16 11:34 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:05 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2024-06-13 14:52 +0100
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ 🏳️🌈D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules🏳️🌈 ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ (Was: 🏳️🌈D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules🏳️🌈) 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2024-06-13 14:51 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:28 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:42 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:52 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 16:53 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 12:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:38 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:03 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:23 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:12 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:06 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 13:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:49 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:26 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:05 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:40 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:58 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:05 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- specification joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:09 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4injg$348ha$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107119 |
On 6/14/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/14/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> No it is more than that. >>>> H cannot even be asked the question: >>>> Does D(D) halt? >>> >>> No, you just don't understand the proper meaning of "ask" when >>> applied to a deterministic entity. >>> >> >> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each >> other then H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior >> of D(D). H1(D,D) has no such pathological relationship >> thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the behavior of D(D). > > OF course it is. The nature of the input doesn't affet the form of the > question that H is supposed to answer. > The textbook asks the question. The data cannot possibly do that. You already said that H cannot possibly map its input to the behavior of D(D). We need to stay focused on this one single point until you fully get it. Unlike the other two respondents you do have the capacity to understand this. You keep expecting H to read your computer science textbooks. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4iraj$kqh$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107122 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4ishe$353lt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107124 |
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.
>
Did you know that the code itself cannot read these specifications?
The specifications say {draw a square circle}, the code says huh?
> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we
I don't have time for an infinite conversation.
H is ONLY defined to be a D decider.
> 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.
>
NO !!! It is impossible for anyone or anything to provide
a correct answer to a question THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING ASKED.
> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>
Give it your best shot, it must be encoded in C.
>>
>> 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.
>
The spec says {CAD system that draws square circles}
The programmer say WTF!
> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions they
> were programmed to do,
There is no way to encode H to even see the behavior of D(D)
when H and D have the pathological relationship.
That is the dumbed down version of H cannot map its finite
string x86 machine code to the behavior of D(D).
> 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.
>
Sure make a CAD system that draws square circles or you are fired.
You are failing to understand the notion of logically
impossible.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4ith9$kqh$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107126 |
On 6/14/24 9:59 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.
>>
>
> Did you know that the code itself cannot read these specifications?
> The specifications say {draw a square circle}, the code says huh?
And what make you think it needs to?
You are just showing a TOTAL IGNORANCE of the field of prgramming.
did the x86utm program write itself after you showing it the specifications?
>
>> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we
>
> I don't have time for an infinite conversation.
> H is ONLY defined to be a D decider.
It needs to be at least a D Halting Decider which has the same
requirement, just restricted to the class of programs built on the
template D.
And that means H doesn't need to "read" the problem statement either.
So, you are just showing your stupidity.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> NO !!! It is impossible for anyone or anything to provide
> a correct answer to a question THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING ASKED.
>
OF course they can. For instance, you can solve a maze without knowing
that this is the task, if you are given an instruction sheet telling you
what moves to make.
Programs don't "know" what they are doing, they are just "dumb"
automatons that do exact as they are programmed to act.
>> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>>
>
> Give it your best shot, it must be encoded in C.
Why?
C is not a good language to express requirements.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> The spec says {CAD system that draws square circles}
> The programmer say WTF!
But there isn't a contradition like that in the specification of Halting.
>
>> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions they
>> were programmed to do,
>
> There is no way to encode H to even see the behavior of D(D)
> when H and D have the pathological relationship.
>
> That is the dumbed down version of H cannot map its finite
> string x86 machine code to the behavior of D(D).
But the map exists, so we are allowed to ask to compute it.
Of course, one possible answer is that it can not be done, but for that
answer to be correct, we need to show that it actually can not be done,
which the Turing Proof does.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Sure make a CAD system that draws square circles or you are fired.
Your not my boss. Note, for the Halting problem, a allowed, and turns
out correct, answer is: No such program can exist.
>
> You are failing to understand the notion of logically
> impossible.
>
Nope.
YOu are showing you don't understand the purpose of Computation theory.
That some problems have no answer is EXACTLY what Computation Theory is
looking at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4iu3h$3971l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107131 |
On 6/14/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/14/24 9:59 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.
>>>
>>
>> Did you know that the code itself cannot read these specifications?
>> The specifications say {draw a square circle}, the code says huh?
>
> And what make you think it needs to?
>
> You are just showing a TOTAL IGNORANCE of the field of prgramming.
>
> did the x86utm program write itself after you showing it the
> specifications?
>
>>
>>> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we
>>
>> I don't have time for an infinite conversation.
>> H is ONLY defined to be a D decider.
>
> It needs to be at least a D Halting Decider which has the same
> requirement, just restricted to the class of programs built on the
> template D.
>
> And that means H doesn't need to "read" the problem statement either.
>
> So, you are just showing your stupidity.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> NO !!! It is impossible for anyone or anything to provide
>> a correct answer to a question THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING ASKED.
>>
>
> OF course they can. For instance, you can solve a maze without knowing
> that this is the task, if you are given an instruction sheet telling you
> what moves to make.
>
> Programs don't "know" what they are doing, they are just "dumb"
> automatons that do exact as they are programmed to act.
>
>>> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>>>
>>
>> Give it your best shot, it must be encoded in C.
>
> Why?
>
> C is not a good language to express requirements.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> The spec says {CAD system that draws square circles}
>> The programmer say WTF!
>
> But there isn't a contradition like that in the specification of Halting.
>
>>
>>> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions they
>>> were programmed to do,
>>
>> There is no way to encode H to even see the behavior of D(D)
>> when H and D have the pathological relationship.
>>
>> That is the dumbed down version of H cannot map its finite
>> string x86 machine code to the behavior of D(D).
>
> But the map exists, so we are allowed to ask to compute it.
>
There is no map from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D)
> Of course, one possible answer is that it can not be done, but for that
> answer to be correct, we need to show that it actually can not be done,
> which the Turing Proof does.
>
It is IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN ASK THE QUESTION.
You agreed that there is no map.
You fail to understand that this means
THE QUESTION CANNOT EVEN BE ASKED.
THIS IS YOUR SHORT-COMING AND NOT MY MISTAKE.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4ivd5$kqh$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107133 |
On 6/14/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/14/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/14/24 9:59 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you know that the code itself cannot read these specifications?
>>> The specifications say {draw a square circle}, the code says huh?
>>
>> And what make you think it needs to?
>>
>> You are just showing a TOTAL IGNORANCE of the field of prgramming.
>>
>> did the x86utm program write itself after you showing it the
>> specifications?
>>
>>>
>>>> Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we
>>>
>>> I don't have time for an infinite conversation.
>>> H is ONLY defined to be a D decider.
>>
>> It needs to be at least a D Halting Decider which has the same
>> requirement, just restricted to the class of programs built on the
>> template D.
>>
>> And that means H doesn't need to "read" the problem statement either.
>>
>> So, you are just showing your stupidity.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> NO !!! It is impossible for anyone or anything to provide
>>> a correct answer to a question THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING ASKED.
>>>
>>
>> OF course they can. For instance, you can solve a maze without knowing
>> that this is the task, if you are given an instruction sheet telling
>> you what moves to make.
>>
>> Programs don't "know" what they are doing, they are just "dumb"
>> automatons that do exact as they are programmed to act.
>>
>>>> That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Give it your best shot, it must be encoded in C.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> C is not a good language to express requirements.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> The spec says {CAD system that draws square circles}
>>> The programmer say WTF!
>>
>> But there isn't a contradition like that in the specification of Halting.
>>
>>>
>>>> Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions they
>>>> were programmed to do,
>>>
>>> There is no way to encode H to even see the behavior of D(D)
>>> when H and D have the pathological relationship.
>>>
>>> That is the dumbed down version of H cannot map its finite
>>> string x86 machine code to the behavior of D(D).
>>
>> But the map exists, so we are allowed to ask to compute it.
>>
>
> There is no map from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D)
Utterly a LIE.
Since your H(D,D) returns 0, we KNOW that the mapping is:
(D,D) -> Halting.
And the way to determine the mapping for ANY input is:
if UTM(<M>,d) will halt, the (<M>, d) -> Halting,
otherwise (<M>, d) -> Non-halting.
>
>> Of course, one possible answer is that it can not be done, but for
>> that answer to be correct, we need to show that it actually can not be
>> done, which the Turing Proof does.
>>
> It is IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN ASK THE QUESTION.
No it isn't.
>
> You agreed that there is no map.
No, there IS a mapping from the input to the correct answer.
> You fail to understand that this means
> THE QUESTION CANNOT EVEN BE ASKED.
> THIS IS YOUR SHORT-COMING AND NOT MY MISTAKE.
>
And you are proving that you are just totally ignorant of what you are
talking about, and thus LYING when you make falall your false claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4ivlg$39gh7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107135 |
On 6/14/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/14/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/14/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> You agreed that there is no map. > > No, there IS a mapping from the input to the correct answer. > You said that there is no map from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D) >> You fail to understand that this means >> THE QUESTION CANNOT EVEN BE ASKED. >> THIS IS YOUR SHORT-COMING AND NOT MY MISTAKE. >> > > And you are proving that you are just totally ignorant of what you are > talking about, and thus LYING when you make falall your false claims. > Maybe this is simply ever your head too?? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4j2lr$kqh$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107137 |
On 6/14/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/14/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/14/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/14/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> You agreed that there is no map. >> >> No, there IS a mapping from the input to the correct answer. >> > > You said that there is no map from the input to H(D,D) > to the behavior of D(D) WHERE? I think this is another of your famous lies cause by your misunderstanding what was said, and even after the person corrects you, you are still stuck on your lie. I have said that H can not compute that mapping, but that is something different. > >>> You fail to understand that this means >>> THE QUESTION CANNOT EVEN BE ASKED. >>> THIS IS YOUR SHORT-COMING AND NOT MY MISTAKE. >>> >> >> And you are proving that you are just totally ignorant of what you are >> talking about, and thus LYING when you make falall your false claims. >> > > Maybe this is simply ever your head too?? > > > Nope. You are just proving you are a liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4isva$392jh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107124 |
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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4itis$kqh$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107129 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4iutm$39bc0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107132 |
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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4ivig$kqh$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107134 |
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. This seems to be your normal problem, you think that if you don't understand it, it must be wrong, and if it disagrees with your ideas, it must be wrong. It truth, the problem is that YOU are wrong, and refuse to look at the evidence. You are worse than the election deniers that you claim to be trying to save from their ignorance, but instead, you are trying to push a bigger ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4ivti$39gh7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107136 |
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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4j28d$kqh$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107138 |
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, because it is one of the "first truths" that build the system. If you have a defined set for "everything", ther ewill be something in that full set, that needs to be a "first truth" that doesn't have a truth maker in the "everything" And if your try to make your "everything" be the undefined everything, you have opened your system to the Naive Set Theory problem, and your system WILL have contradictions to itself. So, you need to make the choice, is your everything "defined" and thus you have things true without a truth maker in the system, or your everything is not-defined and you get the inherent inconsistancies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4j2ck$39ub0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107140 |
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 !!! -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4j2u4$kqh$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107141 |
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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4j3bd$3a0ot$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107144 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4js1c$2218$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107146 |
On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there exists a universe where that is true. THAT is the problem with saying you include EVERYTHING without restriction. > >> 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. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4k5aq$3fnqu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107150 |
On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include EVERY > universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there exists a > universe where that is true. > iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some physically existing or conception thing makes X true. There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the field that make that same stupid mistake. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4k69h$2218$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107168 |
On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include EVERY >> universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there exists a >> universe where that is true. >> > > iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some > physically existing or conception thing makes X true. Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to make them true. A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size. > > There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the > field that make that same stupid mistake. > > But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, where you are making a similar stupid mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web