Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric

On 5/13/25 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 17:21, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
instead of the actual behavior that the finite
string of DD specifies:

>
Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want to know about.

>
Why?
>
DDD doesn't do anything interesting.
>
If it were a universal halt decider we'd have a reason to care, because its very existence would overturn pretty much the whole of computability theory and enable us to clean up many of the unsolved problems of mathematics.
>

 Sure and we could achieve the same thing by
simply hard-coding the actual all-knowing
mind of God into a formal system.

Except that we can't. And that just shows you don't understand the nature of the problem.

 The question is not about any universal halt
decider that must be literally all knowing.
 It has always actually only been about things
that could prevent consistently determining
the halt status of conventional programs.

Right, but since D halts, H(D) returning 0 is just wrong.
It doesn't matter that H is possible a correct POOP decider (that decides if the nonsensical "correct simulation by me" criteria is meet) becuase the claim is that you correctly Halt Decided that input, which it didn't.

 

But it /isn't/ a universal halt decider, so who (apart from Mr Olcott) gives a damn whether it stops? About the only reason I can think of for caring is to set Mr Olcott straight, but he has made it abundantly clear that he's unsettable straightable.
>

 There is no time that we are ever going to directly
encode omniscience into a computer program. The
screwy idea of a universal halt decider that is
literally ALL KNOWING is just a screwy idea.
 

But it doesn't need to KNOW everything, the idea was that it could COMPUTE the correct aswer to that problem (and then theory could show that all truth was computable).
The fact that we can't build a universal Halt Decider is part of the reason that God can know stuff that we don't.
Since you admit that is possible (that there are true facts, what God Knows, that we can't encode in the formal system) then there not being a universal Halt Decider is a reasonable situation.
Sorry, you are just showing you are too stupid to understand the meaning of the words you are using.