On 11/16/24 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/16/24 4:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/16/24 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 12:31 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:18:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/16/2024 10:51 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:17:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/16/2024 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>
Which HHH does DDD call, the one that aborts?
This has never made any damn difference.
It absolutely does. If the inner HHH aborts, the outer doesn't need to,
because DDD halts.
>
That I have to keep telling you this seems to indicate that you are a
liar.
You don't need to. I am talking about the inner H called by D, not the
outermost H simulating D.
>
>
OK I GIVE UP YOU ARE JUST A DAMNED LIAR
YOU PROVED THAT BB ERASING RATHER THAN
RESPONDING TO MY MOST RELEVANT CONTEXT
>
So, you agree that YOUR erasing of context from my replies just makes you a DAMNED LIAR
>
>
The fact remains that DDD emulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
state no matter WTF else IS THE CORRECT BASIS.
>
No, the CORRECT BASIS is the basis DEFINED for the Halting Problem,
>
By this same reasoning the correct basis for Russell's
Paradox is naive set theory and ZFC is stupidly wrong
to think otherwise, nitwit.
>
>
Well, Russel's paradox only exists in Naive Set Theory, but I think you have your arguement backwards.
>
Zermelo did the work to develope a Set Theory Framework that didn't suffer the problems of Russel's paradox.
>
It doesn't "fix" Russel's paradox, as in ZFC, the Paradox just doesn't exist.
>
Yes we agree on all of the above.
All that ZFC really needed to do is disallow a
set to be a member of itself.
No, it needs to create a full set thoery that doesn't present the problem of Naive Set Theory and the Russel Paradox.
Since a set containinig itself is a FUNDAMENTAL ability of how Naive Set Theory builds sets, you can't just "disallow it".
Since you haven't yet actually created a new Computaiton Theory, or even the new Logic Theory to base it on, you are stuck in the Theory that is defined, and that has the definitions that it has,
>
Analogous to disallowing a set to be a member of itself
without actually changing anything I simply correct the
misconception that a decider must report on anything besides
the actual behavior specified by its actual input.
But that requires changing many of the fundamental definitions of Computation Theory, like the definition of what a semantic property is.
Sorry, that definition is very fundamental to the theory.
Prior to the notion of emulating termination analyzers
/ simulating halt deciders we had no direct measure of
what this behavior actually is.
No, you are just showing your stupidity, as Simulating Halt Deciders as a concept have existed for DECADES, with the undetstanding that, like any halt decider, they can only correctly answer for some inputs.
We simply guessed that the decider must get the wrong
answer. Now we do have the direct measure that DDD
emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state.
Nope, since the property of behavior has been firmly defined, there was no "guessing".
All you are doing is showing that YOUR logic is based on try to "Guess" at something that looks a bit like the real property that you can try to hornswaggle people into thinking it might be similer enough to let it by.
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity and ignorance.
It seems your stupidity reaches the point where you don't understand that lying about what the rules are s just that, LYING. To change the rules, you need to put in the effort to make the new system, and THEN make it clear that you are in your new system.
>
I am not even telling a falsehood about anything.
I am simply paying much closer attention to details
that simply were not available prior to my creation
of the notion of a simulating halt decider.
Sure you are, you are calling things something they are not based on tring to redefine terms that you are not allowed to change.
Anything less just shows your true lying nature.
>
DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state.
Outside of my notion of a simulating termination the question
was a different question.
But "DDD emulated by HHH" to mean the results of the PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH is just not a valid semantic property of the input, and your input isn't even a program so it doesn't have that class of semantic properties.
The question: Does your input halt?
*has a different context thus a different meaning*
Nope, it has PRECISELY ONE meaning in the field.
For the halting problem decider/input pair where the
decider does not emulate its input this counter-example
input formed this question:
The "method" used to decide the property has no bearing on the value of the property the decider is to decide on. Not for any valid property that a decider can be asked in computation theory, as the correct answer is determined by the mathematical function that computes the property, which is only a function of the input, and not the decider.
You are just showing your fundamental ignorance of what you are trying to talk about.
What correct Boolean value can a halt decider return that
has an input defined to do the opposite of whatever value
it returns?
But that isn't the question, becuase that doesn't reference a FIXED program as an input, and the halting problem has ALWAYS been about deciding on a given input program and its input.
A simulating halt decider makes the self-contradictory
part of the input unreachable code thus changing the
context (thus meaning) of the question.
Nope. just shows that you put yourself into an incorrect context in the first place.
The input program is a FIXED input, that doesn't changed based on the decider, as its behavior is what it does when run, and then no decider is present. Thus, it behavior can't change based on the decider.
You confuse the logic that for every decider, we can contruct a specific input that that decider will get wrong, with trying to make a single input that all deciders will get wrong, which is just breaking all the rules of the system.
Sorry, but that IS how things work, and you failure to beleive that just shows your insanity.
Your funny-mental problem seems to be that you don't like the results that the standard logic generates because it doesn't match your idea of what the answer should be. Rather than accepting that your ideas are just wrong, you, in your arrogance, are trying to define the logic as wrong. The problem is that to change the logic system, you need to know enough to create a logical competitor, and then persude people that yours is better, even though with its restrictions needed to change the parts you want, it will be weaker.
Instead, as described in the immortal work that tells us to make sure we know where our towel is, you are going to be like those that advocated that since beauty was truth, and truth beauty, and life was guilty of being neither, the judge will agree with you and find life guilty of contempt of court and order it taken from those present.
In other words, all you are doing is showing you don't understand about how things work, and reality will get back at you for doing so.
The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---
Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---