Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 270 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
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 --- 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 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) 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) --- 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 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
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 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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
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: 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
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 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 --- 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 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 --- 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 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 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 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
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
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 --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dfsu$3qbnd$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335430 |
On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>> >>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>> >>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>> >>> >>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >> >> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer >> the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question >> is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine >> represented by its input. >> > > *H is not even being asked that question* So, H ian't a Halt Decider? Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" > H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string > inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules. Nope, Where do you get that from? You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is correct. > > H is not answering the question that is in your head. > H is answering the question that it is being asked. > So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time about working on the halting problem. There goes you claim to have never lied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dhuk$1tsdf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335433 |
On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>>>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>>> >>>> >>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >>> >>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is >>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that >>> Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine >>> represented by its input. >>> >> >> *H is not even being asked that question* > > So, H ian't a Halt Decider? > > Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the > machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" > THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified by this finite string input. When it does this it does not end up with the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >> H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string >> inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules. > > Nope, Where do you get that from? > H computes the mapping. H does not read your mind to see what you expect. When H(D,D) computes the mapping FROM ITS FINITE STRING INPUT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY GET TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED D(D) > You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you don't > understand requirements and how they actually define what is correct. > >> >> H is not answering the question that is in your head. >> H is answering the question that it is being asked. >> > > So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time about > working on the halting problem. > > There goes you claim to have never lied. SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! -- 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 | 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4diet$3qbnc$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335437 |
On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that
>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the
>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is
>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that
>>>> Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>> machine represented by its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *H is not even being asked that question*
>>
>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider?
>>
>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the
>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>>
>
> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
How do you say that?
Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>
> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified
> by this finite string input.
So, Definitions don't mean anything?
I guess they don't to LIARS.
And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is
just a LIE to you.
>
> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior
> of the directly executed D(D).
Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>
>>> H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string
>>> inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules.
>>
>> Nope, Where do you get that from?
>>
>
> H computes the mapping.
> H does not read your mind to see what you expect.
No, but the programmer who claims that H is a Halt decider was
responsible for knowing the defintion of the problem before saying he
had a solution.
> When H(D,D) computes the mapping FROM ITS FINITE STRING INPUT
> IT CANNOT POSSIBLY GET TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED D(D)
So, it just shows it NEVER WAS a Halt decider, and its creator (you) has
just been LYING about what it was supposed to be.
>
>> You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you
>> don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is
>> correct.
>>
>>>
>>> H is not answering the question that is in your head.
>>> H is answering the question that it is being asked.
>>>
>>
>> So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time
>> about working on the halting problem.
>>
>> There goes you claim to have never lied.
>
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
Halt(M, d) -> True if M(d) will Halt
-> False if M(d) will never Halt.
For ALL Turing Machines M and inputs d.
That is the DEFINITION, that you have knows about since you started, as
it is clearly in the definition of the problem.
If you neglected it, it just shows you don't understand the meaning of
requirements.
Your claim that a "Halt Decider" can "correct" compute ANY other mapping
just shows you to be a pathological liar
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dj9i$1tsdf$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335438 |
On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that >>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is >>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And >>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>> machine represented by its input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *H is not even being asked that question* >>> >>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider? >>> >>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the >>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" >>> >> >> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. > > How do you say that? > > Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? > >> >> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >> by this finite string input. > > So, Definitions don't mean anything? > Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. > I guess they don't to LIARS. > > And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is > just a LIE to you. > >> >> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >> of the directly executed D(D). > > Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. > H must compute question that it is being asked. Did not know that H does not understand English? The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dkp0$3qbnd$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335441 |
On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that >>>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is >>>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And >>>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>> machine represented by its input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *H is not even being asked that question* >>>> >>>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider? >>>> >>>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does >>>> the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" >>>> >>> >>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >> >> How do you say that? >> >> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >> >>> >>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>> by this finite string input. >> >> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >> > > Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. But the formal question can be translated into English. And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements doecument. "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do what they are programmed to do. The PROGRMMER making it needs to understand the question in which ever form it is presented. > >> I guess they don't to LIARS. >> >> And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words >> is just a LIE to you. >> >>> >>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >>> of the directly executed D(D). >> >> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. >> > > H must compute question that it is being asked. > Did not know that H does not understand English? So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out the door. So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the quesitn. > > The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). > IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of the actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just admitting to being a LIAR. There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy. > > How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? > EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. > Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact same department as which I studied in. The department name is Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in the CS part of the program. I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real Turing Machines to handle moderate problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dlac$225kb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335447 |
On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>> >>> How do you say that? >>> >>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>> >>>> >>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>> by this finite string input. >>> >>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>> >> >> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. > > But the formal question can be translated into English. > > And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements > doecument. > > "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do > what they are programmed to do. H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. No one ever tells it anything different than this. > The PROGRMMER making it needs to > understand the question in which ever form it is presented. > >> >>> I guess they don't to LIARS. >>> >>> And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words >>> is just a LIE to you. >>> >>>> >>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >>>> of the directly executed D(D). >>> >>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. >>> >> >> H must compute question that it is being asked. >> Did not know that H does not understand English? > > So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out the > door. > > So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it > unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the quesitn. > > >> >> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >> IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. > > Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of the > actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just admitting > to being a LIAR. > > There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy. > No the problem has always been that you are just too freaking stupid. That is my canned reply every time you call me a liar. > >> >> How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? >> EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. >> > > Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact > same department as which I studied in. The department name is Electrical > Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in the CS part of > the program. > > I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real > Turing Machines to handle moderate problems. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dm13$3qbnc$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335450 |
On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>> >>>> How do you say that? >>>> >>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>> by this finite string input. >>>> >>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>> >>> >>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >> >> But the formal question can be translated into English. >> >> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements >> doecument. >> >> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do >> what they are programmed to do. > > H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. > No one ever tells it anything different than this. H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. If the programmer is too stupid to understand the requirements, he never should have claimed his program was a Halt Decider. You keep on making that sort of mistake, confusing deterministic machines with Willful beings. I guess you are just proving that you are too stupid to know what you were supposed to do, and have admitted that you have wasted 20 years working on a problem you didn't understand. > >> The PROGRMMER making it needs to understand the question in which ever >> form it is presented. >> >>> >>>> I guess they don't to LIARS. >>>> >>>> And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words >>>> is just a LIE to you. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >>>>> of the directly executed D(D). >>>> >>>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. >>>> >>> >>> H must compute question that it is being asked. >>> Did not know that H does not understand English? >> >> So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out >> the door. >> >> So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it >> unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the >> quesitn. >> >> >>> >>> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>> IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. >> >> Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of >> the actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just >> admitting to being a LIAR. >> >> There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy. >> > > No the problem has always been that you are just too freaking stupid. > That is my canned reply every time you call me a liar. > Which is just another LIE of yours. Your problem is you have lost the concept of truth, because you have lived a life filled with lies. That is why I call you a PATHOLOGICAL liar. You LIE, because you no longer can understand the difference between truth and falsehood. >> >>> >>> How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? >>> EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. >>> >> >> Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact >> same department as which I studied in. The department name is >> Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in >> the CS part of the program. >> >> I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real >> Turing Machines to handle moderate problems. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dmlu$22cmj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335452 |
On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>> >>>>> How do you say that? >>>>> >>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>> >>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>> >>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>> >>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>> requirements doecument. >>> >>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do >>> what they are programmed to do. >> >> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >> No one ever tells it anything different than this. > > H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. > The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dnrp$3qbnd$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335454 |
On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>> >>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>> >>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>> requirements doecument. >>>> >>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just >>>> do what they are programmed to do. >>> >>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >> >> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >> > > The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). > > You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because > you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. > > Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. You CAN'T be correct, as you admit you aren't working on the problem that you say yoy are, because you, as the programmer, has decided that you don't need to actually follow the requirements, which just makes everything you do WRONG. You are about a century late for your argument. Part of the genesis of the Halting Problem was the concept of a Universal Problem Solver Program (sort of like a Universal Turing Machine, only broader in scope), that, if it could be made, could be given the desccription of ANY problem, and it would crunch on it, and after a finite amount of time, would give the answer. Even if we couldn't actually figure out the program, but could only just prove that it could exist, and even if it might take a million years for it to answer a question, the fact that such a program could exist would mean a lot to mathematics. (Showing things like Completeness). This was an idea of a grand unification of problem spaces. Then, Turing showed that there existed a fundamental problem, that of algorithm halting, that he could show could NOT be computed, and thus the grand Universal Problem Solver could NOT be written, and then out of this, many of the actual limitations of what could be known and done were established.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dotf$22o4a$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335457 |
On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>> >>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>> >>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>> >>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just >>>>> do what they are programmed to do. >>>> >>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>> >>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>> >> >> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >> >> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >> >> > > Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description tells > the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. > The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS mean to you in your own words? -- 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 | 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dq7g$3qbnc$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335461 |
On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just >>>>>> do what they are programmed to do. >>>>> >>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>> >>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>> >>> >>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >>> >>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >>> >>> >> >> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >> > > The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. > What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS > mean to you in your own words? > Of course not. Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were programmed to do on the data. I will ask you, where in the input to H is the question about asking about its behavior encoded in ANY way? The question a program answers, is part of the program specification, not the input. Yes, some programs implement a flexible question, where some of the details about the question are added to the input, but the form of that question is still fully specified by the program specifications. You just don't understand what programs are. I guess you are just a failed coder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dr86$2379j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335463 |
On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior >>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they >>>>>>> just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>> >>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >>>> >>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >>> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >>> >> >> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >> mean to you in your own words? >> > > Of course not. > > Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were > programmed to do on the data. > Simplistic. H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. > I will ask you, where in the input to H is the question about asking > about its behavior encoded in ANY way? > > The question a program answers, is part of the program specification, > not the input. > The input must tell H about its behavior and it does not tell H about D(D). > Yes, some programs implement a flexible question, where some of the > details about the question are added to the input, but the form of that > question is still fully specified by the program specifications. > > You just don't understand what programs are. > > I guess you are just a failed coder. I have two patents on OCR technology. -- 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 | 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4el9k$3rsd6$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335467 |
On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior >>>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they >>>>>>>> just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>>> >>>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >>>>> >>>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >>>> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >>>> >>> >>> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >>> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >>> mean to you in your own words? >>> >> >> Of course not. >> >> Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were >> programmed to do on the data. >> > > Simplistic. > H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior > that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). > They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. No, it does not. To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. And for the problem to be valid, there needs to be an objective standard to measure the answer, but t doesn't need to be computable by H. > >> I will ask you, where in the input to H is the question about asking >> about its behavior encoded in ANY way? >> >> The question a program answers, is part of the program specification, >> not the input. >> > > The input must tell H about its behavior and it does not tell > H about D(D). No, the input must represent the thing being asked about. And the input to H(D,D) does FULLY specify the information needed to determine the answer (at least when you include that the input ALSO includes all the instructions of H and everything that H calls, else YOU made the error of not giving H enough information) > >> Yes, some programs implement a flexible question, where some of the >> details about the question are added to the input, but the form of >> that question is still fully specified by the program specifications. >> >> You just don't understand what programs are. >> >> I guess you are just a failed coder. > > I have two patents on OCR technology. > So? Were they actually useful? I have several patents, and a number of idea protected under trade secrets because they were to useful to be patented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4esmp$28g4v$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335470 |
On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they >>>>>>>>> just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >>>>>> >>>>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >>>>> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >>>> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >>>> mean to you in your own words? >>>> >>> >>> Of course not. >>> >>> Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were >>> programmed to do on the data. >>> >> >> Simplistic. >> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. > > No, it does not. > > To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. > The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine the behavior of D(D). I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know that I am correct. H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. -- 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 | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4f9mt$3smqv$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335476 |
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:37:29 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: > The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine the > behavior of D(D). Oh, sure it does. All the info is right there! Just add simulation! You do know how that works, right? > I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines the > behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know that I am > correct. You are correct: your H does not determine the behaviour of D(D). Why does it arbitrarily decide to halt instead of continuing the simulation? > H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show > otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. H is told about D and can simulate what it does. That's why we're looking for a machine that finds that out for every machine. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4g9c3$3tn6q$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335476 |
On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they >>>>>>>>>> just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>>>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be >>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >>>>>> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >>>>> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >>>>> mean to you in your own words? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course not. >>>> >>>> Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were >>>> programmed to do on the data. >>>> >>> >>> Simplistic. >>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >> >> No, it does not. >> >> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >> > The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine > the behavior of D(D). So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H can use itself. > > I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines > the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know > that I am correct. And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. > > H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show > otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. > But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input to H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program can use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then do the opposite. This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, because the power of the computation system grows faster than the ability to decide on the computation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4g9hf$2mnuk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335485 |
On 6/13/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they >>>>>>>>>>> just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of >>>>>>>> D(D). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>>>>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be >>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >>>>>>> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >>>>>> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >>>>>> mean to you in your own words? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course not. >>>>> >>>>> Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were >>>>> programmed to do on the data. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Simplistic. >>>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >>> >>> No, it does not. >>> >>> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >>> >> The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine >> the behavior of D(D). > > So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, > > The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H can > use itself. > >> >> I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines >> the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know >> that I am correct. > > And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. > > I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are > stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. > >> >> H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show >> otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. >> > > But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input to > H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). > > Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code > for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all > comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program can > use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then do the > opposite. > > This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, > because the power of the computation system grows faster than the > ability to decide on the computation. See my prior reply -- 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 | 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4gc3j$3tn6r$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335486 |
On 6/13/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, >>>>>>>>>>>> they just do what they are programmed to do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>> by H. >>>>>>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of >>>>>>>>> D(D). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>>>>>>>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be >>>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem >>>>>>>> description tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to >>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. >>>>>>> What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS >>>>>>> mean to you in your own words? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were >>>>>> programmed to do on the data. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Simplistic. >>>>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>>>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>>>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >>>> >>>> No, it does not. >>>> >>>> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >>>> >>> The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine >>> the behavior of D(D). >> >> So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, >> >> The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H >> can use itself. >> >>> >>> I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines >>> the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know >>> that I am correct. >> >> And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. >> >> I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are >> stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. >> >>> >>> H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show >>> otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. >>> >> >> But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input >> to H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). >> >> Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code >> for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all >> comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program >> can use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then >> do the opposite. >> >> This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, >> because the power of the computation system grows faster than the >> ability to decide on the computation. > > See my prior reply > If you mean the one in this thread about an hour or so ago, that doesn't actualy prove your goal that H can be a correct Halt Decider, just that you don't understand what that means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations |
| Message-ID | <v4equn$28g4v$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335441 |
On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a
>>>>>>>>> UTM.
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
>>>>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior that
>>>>>>>> it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is
>>>>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And
>>>>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>>>> machine represented by its input.
>>>>>> *H is not even being asked that question*
> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
>>>>> So, H isn't a Halt Decider?
>>>>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the
>>>>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
> H answers the wrong question.
>>> How do you say that?
>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>
>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing the
>>>> mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified by this
>>>> finite string input.
>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything?
>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit.
> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>
>>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior of the directly
>>>> executed D(D).
>>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>> H must compute question that it is being asked.
> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
>
Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption
that they do is ridiculously false.
H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive
the behavior that it must report on.
int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H
EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
of D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
>> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT
>> MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
> Then H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
>
--
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 | 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations |
| Message-ID | <v4g9qn$3tn6r$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335473 |
On 6/13/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a
>>>>>>>>>> UTM.
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
>>>>>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior that
>>>>>>>>> it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
>> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is
>>>>>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And
>>>>>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>>>>> machine represented by its input.
>>>>>>> *H is not even being asked that question*
>> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
>>>>>> So, H isn't a Halt Decider?
>>>>>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the
>>>>>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
>> H answers the wrong question.
>>>> How do you say that?
>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>>
>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing the
>>>>> mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified by this
>>>>> finite string input.
>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything?
>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit.
>> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>>
>>>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior of the directly
>>>>> executed D(D).
>>>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>>> H must compute question that it is being asked.
>> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
>>
>
> Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption
> that they do is ridiculously false.
No, but there programmer can, and that is who created H.
>
> H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive
> the behavior that it must report on.
Right, which *IS* (by the definition of a Halt decider) the behavior of
the directly executed machine the input represents.
>
> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
Right, because that *IS* the definition of summig.
So, YOU trying to claim that H(D,D) can report on the "correct
simulation by H" is EXACTLY like saying sum(3,4) can report on 5+6.
>
> H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H
> EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
WHere do you get that form?
It seems, from the POOP up your ass.
I guess you are just admitting that you can't understand the English
statement of the problem
>
> You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
> of D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
H doesn't "believe" anything, it is just an antomaton and does what it
is programmed to do. Since you were the programmer, I guess you are just
admitting you do understand the definition of the problem you started 20
years ago.
So sorry you wasted so much time.
>
> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
So? Who said there had to be?
After all, the full question is does there exist such a path. So, you
just statement that you agree with the statement you have been trying to
disprove for so long.
Doesn't that feel a bit silly to you?
>
>>> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT
>>> MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
>> Then H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web