Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.

On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:

>
No it is more than that.
H cannot even be asked the question:
Does D(D) halt?

>
No, you just don't understand the proper meaning of "ask" when applied to a deterministic entity.
>

>
When H and D have a pathological relationship to each
other then H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior
of D(D). H1(D,D) has no such pathological relationship
thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the behavior of D(D).

>
OF course it is. The nature of the input doesn't affet the form of the question that H is supposed to answer.
>

>
The textbook asks the question.
The data cannot possibly do that.
>

>
But the data doesn't need to do it, as the program specifictions define it.
>
Now, if H was supposed to be a "Universal Problem Decider", then we would need to somehow "encode" the goal of H determining that a correct (and complete) simulation of its input would need to reach a final state, but I see no issue with defining a way to encode that.
>

You already said that H cannot possibly map its
input to the behavior of D(D).

>
Right, it is impossible for H to itself compute that behavior and give an answer.
>
That doesn't mean we can't encode the question.
>

>
We need to stay focused on this one single point until you
fully get it. Unlike the other two respondents you do have
the capacity to understand this.
>
You keep expecting H to read your computer science
textbooks.
>

>
No, I expect its PROGRAMMER to have done that, which clearly you haven't done.
>
Programs don't read their requirements, the perform the actions they were programmed to do, and if the program is correct, it will get the right answer. If it doesn't get the right answer, then the programmer erred in saying it meet the requirements.
>

>
I am only going to talk to you in the one thread about
this, it is too difficult material to understand outside
of a single chain of thought.
>

>
What, you can't keep the different topic straight?

>
It is probably too difficult for anyone to understand outside
of a single thread of thought. It has taken me twenty years
of rehashing the same material until I gradually got deeper
and deeper insights.
>
*THIS IS WHAT HAS KEPT ME GOING FOR TWENTY YEARS*
The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is
correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth
itself cannot possibly be fundamentally broken it must be
fallible human understanding of truth that is actually broken.
>

>
Nope.
>
Maybe YOUR idea of truth is broken, but not truth itself.
>

>
The really weird (and very good) part of this is that your
understanding of these things beats at least half of the
experts in truthmaker theory. I have looked at a dozen papers.
>
Explain how an expression of language can be true when
literally no thing makes it true. This is the one that half
of the experts are totally clueless about.
>
Cats are animals is made true by its definition.
>

>
Because the "thing" that makes it true is OUTSIDE the system of interest,

>
THAT IS NOT NO THING, bzzztt Wrong Answer !!!
>

>
But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true.
>

 bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow colored elephant in my living room right now.

Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there exists a universe where that is true.
THAT is the problem with saying you include EVERYTHING without restriction.

 

So, I guess we know how good your logic system is.
>
All your crasy ideas are true, because everything is true, we can even PROVE that there was wholesale election interfearance with massive fraud.
>
This just goes to your not understand how the infinite works.