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 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v550ip$lkkc$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335802 |
On 6/21/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>
>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>>> it is one.
>>>>
>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>
>> What "False Assumption"?
>>
>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>
>
> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
Nope. You can't change the definitions.
If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you need
to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your alternate
definition for your new thing as what will be considered as the
"standard thing".
This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and
Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new
default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.
Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar
level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that
people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You
need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard Computation
Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even just
Olcott-Halting).
Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a
given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it not
suitable as a property for most uses.
>
> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
> fact that they do differ.
Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong
with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that you
can provide, your statement is just false.
>
> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>
Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
PERIOD.
You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v551ao$3cofl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335803 |
On 6/21/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>>>> it is one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>
>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>
>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>
>>
>> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
>> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
>> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
>
> Nope. You can't change the definitions.
>
> If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you need
> to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your alternate
> definition for your new thing as what will be considered as the
> "standard thing".
>
> This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and
> Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new
> default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.
>
> Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar
> level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that
> people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You
> need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard Computation
> Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even just
> Olcott-Halting).
>
> Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a
> given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it not
> suitable as a property for most uses.
>
>
>>
>> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
>> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
>> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
>> fact that they do differ.
>
> Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong
> with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that you
> can provide, your statement is just false.
>
>>
>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>
>
> Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
> PERIOD.
>
> You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.
When you ONLY have dogma that goes against verified facts
the dogma loses.
The behavior of the input to H(D,D) specifies that the call
from the input to H(D,D) to H(D,D) *DOES NOT RETURN*
You can assume that it does return the same way that you
can assume that puppies are fifteen story office buildings.
--
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 | 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v552qk$lkkb$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335804 |
On 6/21/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>
>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>
>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
>>> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
>>> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
>>
>> Nope. You can't change the definitions.
>>
>> If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you
>> need to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your
>> alternate definition for your new thing as what will be considered as
>> the "standard thing".
>>
>> This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and
>> Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new
>> default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.
>>
>> Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar
>> level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that
>> people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You
>> need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard
>> Computation Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even
>> just Olcott-Halting).
>>
>> Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a
>> given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it
>> not suitable as a property for most uses.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
>>> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
>>> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
>>> fact that they do differ.
>>
>> Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong
>> with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that
>> you can provide, your statement is just false.
>>
>>>
>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
>> PERIOD.
>>
>> You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.
>
> When you ONLY have dogma that goes against verified facts
> the dogma loses.
WHAT "Verified facts" are you talking about?
Your unsupporte claims? those from the proven LIAR?
I speak from the "Dogma" of DEFINITION, which is BY DEFINITION a Truth,
The "Behavior" specified by the input, is the behavior of the direct
running of the program specified by the input, and any other claimed
behavior is an admission that you are just lyint (again).
Try to prove me wrong by showing any accepted source that says your
criteria, with your defintions, is a valid criteria for a Turing
Definition Halt Decider (which is the only kind generally accepted).
>
> The behavior of the input to H(D,D) specifies that the call
> from the input to H(D,D) to H(D,D) *DOES NOT RETURN*
HOW? Are you admitting that your H doesn't ever return an answer to
H(D,D) or is H not the required "Pure Function" that always does the
same thing for the same input.
>
> You can assume that it does return the same way that you
> can assume that puppies are fifteen story office buildings.
>
Nope, it comes from the DEFINITION of what a decider is.
I guess you think puppies can be fifteen story office buildings,
Boy are you STUPID.
I guess you are just admitting that you know nothing of what you talk about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55289$3cthh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335801 |
On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>
>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when
>>>>> the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer)
>>>>> by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>
>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>> it is one.
>>>
>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>
>>
>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>
> What "False Assumption"?
>
> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>
*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
*DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
--
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 | 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v552tf$lkkb$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335805 |
On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>
>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>>> it is one.
>>>>
>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>
>> What "False Assumption"?
>>
>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>
>
> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
But DEFINITIONS DO.
>
> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>
But that isn't the definition that we are using.
NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid and
broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55fn7$3irer$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335807 |
On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>>>> it is one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>
>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>
>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>
>>
>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>
> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>
>>
>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>
>
> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>
> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid and
> broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
behavior that D specifies to H1.
You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
D between these two cases.
--
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 | 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55jl3$nhbb$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335808 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) >>>>>>>>>> will Halt. >>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least >>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 >>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does. >>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if >>>>>> it is one. >>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider >>>>>> >>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the behavior that >>>>> the input to H(D,D) specifies: >>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns >>>> >>>> What "False Assumption"? >>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem. >>>> >>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING* >> >> But DEFINITIONS DO. >>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated by H to >>> H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that this call *DOES NOT >>> RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable because *THERE IS NO REASONING* >>> that supports this. If H really is a decider, it returns. >> But that isn't the definition that we are using. > NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because I am the > sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one ever thought > ALL-THE-WAY through before. Unlikely. Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything. > The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified fact > that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the behavior > that D specifies to H1. But D is the same in either case?! > You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship > that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of D > between these two cases. The behaviour changes only because of the called H. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55k3f$3jl81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335811 |
On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>
>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>
>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>>>>>> it is one.
>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the behavior that
>>>>>> the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>
>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>
>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>
>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated by H to
>>>> H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that this call *DOES NOT
>>>> RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable because *THERE IS NO REASONING*
>>>> that supports this.
> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>
>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>
>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because I am the
>> sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one ever thought
>> ALL-THE-WAY through before.
> Unlikely.
> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>
>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified fact
>> that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the behavior
>> that D specifies to H1.
> But D is the same in either case?!
>
>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of D
>> between these two cases.
> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>
void DDD()
{
H0(DDD);
}
int main()
{
H0(DDD);
H1(DDD);
}
DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
--
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 | 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dogma -- other deciders |
| Message-ID | <v563q2$o4uv$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335812 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:31:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>>>> if it is one. You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the behavior
>>>>>>> that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D)
>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
If it didn't return, H weren't a decider.
>>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated by H to
>>>>> H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that this call *DOES NOT
>>>>> RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable because *THERE IS NO REASONING*
>>>>> that supports this.
>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>>> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
>>> behavior that D specifies to H1.
>> But D is the same in either case?!
D has a certain behaviour. Of course it depends on the called decider,
which by construction should be the one deciding on it. If those are
different, nothing unusual happens and we get the correct result.
>>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
>>> D between these two cases.
Naturally. Deciding D (which calls H) with H1 is not the halting problem,
however (same with H deciding D1 which calls H1).
>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
I see you agree:
> void DDD()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> }
> int main()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> H1(DDD);
> }
> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
There is exactly one correct simulation, which corresponds to the direct
execution.
--
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56i37$onl3$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335812 |
On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>
>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do, if
>>>>>>>> it is one.
>>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the behavior that
>>>>>>> the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>
>>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>
>>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated by H to
>>>>> H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that this call *DOES NOT
>>>>> RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable because *THERE IS NO REASONING*
>>>>> that supports this.
>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>
>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>
>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because I am the
>>> sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one ever thought
>>> ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>> Unlikely.
>> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>>
>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified fact
>>> that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the behavior
>>> that D specifies to H1.
>> But D is the same in either case?!
>>
>>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of D
>>> between these two cases.
>
>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>>
>
> void DDD()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> H1(DDD);
> }
>
> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
>
>
And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the
decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a
mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
(input, decider) -> (output)
Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you
need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being asked
to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective, and thus
not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56iks$3or0r$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335817 |
On 6/22/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to
>>>>>>>>> do, if
>>>>>>>>> it is one.
>>>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the behavior
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>>
>>>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>>
>>>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated by H to
>>>>>> H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that this call *DOES NOT
>>>>>> RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable because *THERE IS NO REASONING*
>>>>>> that supports this.
>>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>>
>>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>
>>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because I am the
>>>> sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one ever thought
>>>> ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>>> Unlikely.
>>> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>>>
>>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>>>> fact
>>>> that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the behavior
>>>> that D specifies to H1.
>>> But D is the same in either case?!
>>>
>>>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>>>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of D
>>>> between these two cases.
>>
>>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>> H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> H0(DDD);
>> H1(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
>> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
>>
>>
>
> And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the
> decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a
> mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
>
> (input, decider) -> (output)
>
> Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
>
> So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
>
> Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you
> need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being asked
> to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective, and thus
> not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
this call DOES NOT RETURN.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
this call DOES RETURN.
I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
--
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 | 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56k4c$onl4$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335823 |
On 6/22/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving
>>>>>>>>>>>> the 0
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to
>>>>>>>>>> do, if
>>>>>>>>>> it is one.
>>>>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the behavior
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>>>
>>>>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated by H to
>>>>>>> H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that this call *DOES NOT
>>>>>>> RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable because *THERE IS NO REASONING*
>>>>>>> that supports this.
>>>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>>>
>>>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>>
>>>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because I am the
>>>>> sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one ever thought
>>>>> ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>>>> Unlikely.
>>>> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>>>>
>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>>>>> fact
>>>>> that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the behavior
>>>>> that D specifies to H1.
>>>> But D is the same in either case?!
>>>>
>>>>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>>>>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior
>>>>> of D
>>>>> between these two cases.
>>>
>>>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>> H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> H0(DDD);
>>> H1(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
>>> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the
>> decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a
>> mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
>>
>> (input, decider) -> (output)
>>
>> Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
>>
>> So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
>>
>> Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you
>> need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being
>> asked to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective,
>> and thus not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.
>
> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
> to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
> this call DOES NOT RETURN.
>
> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
> to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
> this call DOES RETURN.
>
> I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
>
>
The problem is that the "behavior" that the finite string DDD presents
to HH0, is DEFINED by the problem. And if that problem is the Halting
Problem, that behavior is the behavior of the machine the input
represents. If HH0 treats the input as having a different behavior, then
HH0 just isn't a Halting Decider, but something else.
If HH0 is supposed to be a Halting decider, but uses a method that makes
it see something other than that behavior, then it is just an incorrect
Halting Decider, and its algorithm just creates an incorrect recreation
of the property of the input it is supposed to be working on.
A bit of a side note, the actual "Input" to HH0, is a pointer to memory,
and as such it passes a reference to ALL of memory considering the
starting point to be that address, so your "Input" isn't actually the
few bytes of DDD, but ALL of memory and a starting point. If you
actually mean that the input is just those few bytes pointed to by the
address, then the input is improperly formed and is NOT a proper
representation of the input machine, becuase it is incomplete.
The fact you don't understand this, seems to imply you are lacking the
basic knowledge to be talking about this sort of thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56hs2$onl3$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335808 |
On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>
>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>
>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>
>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>
>>>
>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>
>>
>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>
>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid
>> and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
>
> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
> I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
> ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting
Problem.
So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the
ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new
Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares
about.
>
> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
> behavior that D specifies to H1.
Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the
"Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be
actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct
Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate
the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the
effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT "Correct
x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the
simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in
this case is to return 0.
>
> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
> D between these two cases.
>
But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It
might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its
input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever, but
it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56ijs$3or0r$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335816 |
On 6/22/2024 7:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the
>>>>>>>>> 0 answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>
>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>
>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>
>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>
>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid
>>> and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
>>
>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
>> I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
>> ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>
> Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting
> Problem.
>
> So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the
> ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new
> Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares
> about.
>
>>
>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
>> behavior that D specifies to H1.
>
> Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the
> "Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
>
> It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be
> actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct
> Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate
> the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the
> effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT "Correct
> x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
>
> The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the
> simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in
> this case is to return 0.
>
>>
>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
>> D between these two cases.
>>
>
> But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It
> might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its
> input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever, but
> it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
this call DOES NOT RETURN.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
this call DOES RETURN.
I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
--
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 | 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56k4f$onl4$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335822 |
On 6/22/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 7:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the
>>>>>>>>>> 0 answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>
>>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>>
>>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid
>>>> and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
>>>
>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
>>> I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
>>> ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>>
>> Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting
>> Problem.
>>
>> So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the
>> ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new
>> Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares
>> about.
>>
>>>
>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>>> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
>>> behavior that D specifies to H1.
>>
>> Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the
>> "Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
>>
>> It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be
>> actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct
>> Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate
>> the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the
>> effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT
>> "Correct x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
>>
>> The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the
>> simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in
>> this case is to return 0.
>>
>>>
>>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
>>> D between these two cases.
>>>
>>
>> But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It
>> might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its
>> input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever,
>> but it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.
>
> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
> to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
> this call DOES NOT RETURN.
>
> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
> to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
> this call DOES RETURN.
>
> I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
>
>
The problem is that the "behavior" that the finite string DDD presents
to HH0, is DEFINED by the problem. And if that problem is the Halting
Problem, that behavior is the behavior of the machine the input
represents. If HH0 treats the input as having a different behavior, then
HH0 just isn't a Halting Decider, but something else.
If HH0 is supposed to be a Halting decider, but uses a method that makes
it see something other than that behavior, then it is just an incorrect
Halting Decider, and its algorithm just creates an incorrect recreation
of the property of the input it is supposed to be working on.
A bit of a side note, the actual "Input" to HH0, is a pointer to memory,
and as such it passes a reference to ALL of memory considering the
starting point to be that address, so your "Input" isn't actually the
few bytes of DDD, but ALL of memory and a starting point. If you
actually mean that the input is just those few bytes pointed to by the
address, then the input is improperly formed and is NOT a proper
representation of the input machine, becuase it is incomplete.
The fact you don't understand this, seems to imply you are lacking the
basic knowledge to be talking about this sort of thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v55iph$nhbb$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335798 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. Only if H returns. >>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>> Halt. >>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D) >>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that behavior >>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the >> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just >> runnig it and seeing what it does. > No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the > behavior of D(D). If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. H just can't map it. > You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H *must > return* against the verified facts that it does not return. Either H is not a decider or it returns. > The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive > chain where the second call is always aborted. > *these two calls are not identical* They most definitely are. The input is the same. > H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) > will return. Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts nonterminating inputs. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v55jba$3jg9i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335809 |
On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. > Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). > You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. > Only if H returns. > >>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>>> Halt. >>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D) >>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that behavior >>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* > Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the >>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just >>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the >> behavior of D(D). > If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. > The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. > H just can't map it. > >> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H *must >> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. > Either H is not a decider or it returns. > >> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive >> chain where the second call is always aborted. >> *these two calls are not identical* > They most definitely are. The input is the same. > >> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >> will return. > Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts nonterminating > inputs. > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. -- 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 | 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation |
| Message-ID | <v5633t$o4uv$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335810 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >> Only if H returns. >>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>> D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>> behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>> the behavior of D(D). >> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >> H just can't map it. >> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>> recursive chain where the second call is always aborted. >>> *these two calls are not identical* >> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>> will return. >> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >> nonterminating inputs. > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior > of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in > recursive simulation. D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the > behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in > recursive simulation. The simulation by H is then of course not correct. What about the other points above? -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation |
| Message-ID | <v56id4$3or0r$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335813 |
On 6/22/2024 3:47 AM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. > >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>> Only if H returns. > >>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>> D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>> behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. > >>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>> the behavior of D(D). >>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>> H just can't map it. >>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. > >>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>>> recursive chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. > >>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>> will return. >>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>> nonterminating inputs. >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior >> of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in >> recursive simulation. > D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > When you change the subject rather than address the point at hand I take this to mean that you do not want an honest dialogue. >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the >> behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in >> recursive simulation. > The simulation by H is then of course not correct. > > What about the other points above? > -- 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 | 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation |
| Message-ID | <v56nhd$ov4f$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335820 |
Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:08:51 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/22/2024 3:47 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>>> the behavior of D(D). >>>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>>> H just can't map it. >>>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to >>>>> H(D,D) will return. >>>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>>> nonterminating inputs. >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the >>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) >>> in recursive simulation. >> D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > When you change the subject rather than address the point at hand I take > this to mean that you do not want an honest dialogue. Unlike you, I replied to the points at hand. See below. >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the >>> behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in >>> recursive simulation. >> The simulation by H is then of course not correct. >> What about the other points above? Yeah, what about them? -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web