Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES

On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>
It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>

>
Why? I don't claim it can.

>
When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input
to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and
and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you
have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog.

>
No, by asking a Red Herring question,

>
*In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE*

>
No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why?
>

>
In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not
being asked about the behavior of D(D).

>
Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the Halting Problem.
>

>
You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that
deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what
you think that this input should mean.
>

>
And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD.
>

>
Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks.
You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D).
>
>

>
Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority.
>

>
The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
>

>
Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system.
>

 If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices
this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that
definition is proved wrong by its incoherence.

Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just like that.
Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one.
Like was done with Naive Set Theory.
But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and then show you have a full replacement system available to ask people to try to switch to,
The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the original system.

 

When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers.
>
Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms.
>

 I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that
learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel
and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what
happened to Professor Hehner.

Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like your papa was.

 Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much.

Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna.

 

Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the definition of that system).

>
>

>