Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 13. Jun 2024, 02:36:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v4diet$3qbnc$7@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, that is a UTM.
>
>
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>
Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
>
>
H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
>
Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented by its input.
>
>
*H is not even being asked that question*
>
So, H ian't a Halt Decider?
>
Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>
THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
How do you say that?
Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified
by this finite string input.
So, Definitions don't mean anything?
I guess they don't to LIARS.
And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is just a LIE to you.
When it does this it does not end up with the behavior
of the directly executed D(D).
Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string
inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules.
>
Nope, Where do you get that from?
>
H computes the mapping.
H does not read your mind to see what you expect.
No, but the programmer who claims that H is a Halt decider was responsible for knowing the defintion of the problem before saying he had a solution.
When H(D,D) computes the mapping FROM ITS FINITE STRING INPUT
IT CANNOT POSSIBLY GET TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED D(D)
So, it just shows it NEVER WAS a Halt decider, and its creator (you) has just been LYING about what it was supposed to be.
You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is correct.
>
>
H is not answering the question that is in your head.
H is answering the question that it is being asked.
>
>
So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time about working on the halting problem.
>
There goes you claim to have never lied.
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
Halt(M, d) -> True if M(d) will Halt
-> False if M(d) will never Halt.
For ALL Turing Machines M and inputs d.
That is the DEFINITION, that you have knows about since you started, as it is clearly in the definition of the problem.
If you neglected it, it just shows you don't understand the meaning of requirements.
Your claim that a "Halt Decider" can "correct" compute ANY other mapping just shows you to be a pathological liar
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
| Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 373 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 10 | | joes |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 4 | | Mikko |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 3 | | olcott |
| 11 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 2 | | Mikko |
| 11 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 1 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 5 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 4 | | joes |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 3 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- | 2 | | joes |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- | 1 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 362 | | Richard Damon |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 361 | | olcott |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 360 | | Richard Damon |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 359 | | olcott |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 358 | | Richard Damon |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 357 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 355 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 354 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 302 | | Python |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 301 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 300 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 299 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 298 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 297 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 296 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 295 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 288 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 287 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 285 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 284 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 283 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 282 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 281 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 280 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 274 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 273 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 272 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 271 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 270 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 269 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 1 | | joes |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 267 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 236 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 235 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 234 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 231 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 230 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 229 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 228 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 169 | | joes |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 168 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 166 | | joes |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 163 | | Mikko |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 162 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 16 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 160 | | Mikko |
| 16 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 159 | | olcott |
| 17 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 158 | | Mikko |
| 17 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 157 | | olcott |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 156 | | Mikko |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 155 | | olcott |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 154 | | Mikko |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 153 | | olcott |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 152 | | Mikko |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 151 | | olcott |
| 19 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 150 | | Mikko |
| 19 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 149 | | olcott |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 148 | | Mikko |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 147 | | olcott |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 146 | | Mikko |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 145 | | olcott |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 5 | | joes |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 4 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 3 | | Fred. Zwarts |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 56 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 55 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 54 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 53 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 52 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 51 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 50 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 47 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 46 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 45 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 44 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 43 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 42 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 41 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 40 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 39 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 38 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 37 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 36 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 35 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 34 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 2 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 83 | | Mikko |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 58 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | joes |
| 15 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies | 12 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES | 18 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 5 | | joes |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 1 | | joes |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 6 | | joes |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 51 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 1 | | Fred. Zwarts |