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

On 2024-06-16 03:22:56 +0000, olcott said:

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.
 

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.

You can present your own definition of a term but only before the first
use of the term in your message (or other opus). That overrules the
meaning for that message but not for any other, so you must overrule
again for each message that uses the term.
A better way is to avoid using terms that don't mean what
needs be meant.
--
Mikko