Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)

On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.

>

I really don't care what you believe.
It is not about belief.
It is about correct reasoning.

>
No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
reasoning is correct.
>

>
I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way
to people that have already made up their mind and closed it
thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking
for an error and finding none.

>
BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual
>

>
If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong
yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes
this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient
technical competence.
>

>
We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS.
>

 When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the
behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong.
 *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God*
 

Why do you say it can not be "mapped"
Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider are supposed to use, as
(D,D) -> Halting
Is a perfectly valid mapping.
Your problem is you keep on trying to LIE by trying to change the meaning of the words, probalby because you just don't understand the actual meaning because you have forced yourself to be stupid about them by not actually studing them.
YOU are not "God" either, but the textbooks do quote the "words of 'God'" in the sense that the creators of the fields are the 'Gods' of the field that define what things in the field mean.
And, when you defy the words of 'God', you get cast out of 'heaven', which here means you logic just fails to be applicable.
If you want, you can create your own field and be the 'God' of it, but then you need to convince people to come to your world.
The 'faithful' of the existing system, who know the actual meaning of the words, will be there to expose your lies when you try to convince people that your world is just like the actual one that people know.
So, all you are doing is publicly admitting that you are defying the authorative definitioin of things in the system, because you just don't like them.
And, just ike the ACTUAL GOD of this universe, who created it and everything in it, decides what the rules are, and if you choose to not believe him, will cast you out at the time of judging, when you refuse the rules of the field of logic, you find yourself cast out the them, with nothing to stand on.