For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife? https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NOH(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider H
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
Which is a different issue.
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine
described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final state,
which has
That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
other Hs.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
the correct answer is no.
That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
the correct answer is no.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NOH(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider H
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
Which is a different issue.
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine
described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final state,
which has
That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed to haveIt now seems to me that you never were lying.
specifed before you could ever actually ask the question.
You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude
that you and others were lying.
The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.
On 3/13/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider H
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
Which is a different issue.
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which s a lying comment since nothing in the question asks for one.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
isomorphic to
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
The question ask for the mapping from D,D to Halts(D,D), which exists.That is not the question that H(D,D) is being asked.
Remeber, the question is, and only is:
The same as the specific_unmarried_man
The logical law of polar questions
Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM sci.lang
When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.
Does the Machine and Input described by the input Halt when run.They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
Thus, H only gets ivolved when we are CHECKING the answer.
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.
Only in that H doesn't exist, as oesn't the man's wife.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine
described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final
state, which has
That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which is just a Red Herring, because we are NOT asking about what H
does, but about what its input represents and what H needs to do to be
correct.
an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed toIt now seems to me that you never were lying.
have specifed before you could ever actually ask the question.
You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude
that you and others were lying.
The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
No, we are biased to the truth.
Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.
But the queston isn't about the execution trace,
Yes it always was.
*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually did*
You disagreed with the proven facts.
it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation represented by
the input (which you almost NEVER show,
That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.
because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider gives.
On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
other Hs.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
the correct answer is no.
That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
it does not.
It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
I did not read this article. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
the correct answer is no.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NOH(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
H(D,D) -> YES
and
H(D,D) -> NO
are two mappings
I did not say that precisely enough.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
On 3/13/2024 11:22 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds
for other Hs.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
the correct answer is no.
That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
it does not.
It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
I did not read this article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
the correct answer is no.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NOH(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
H(D,D) -> YES
and
H(D,D) -> NO
are two mappings
I did not say that precisely enough.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
*The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
On 3/13/2024 11:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity.
On 3/13/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider HWhich is a different issue.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ >>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which s a lying comment since nothing in the question asks for one.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which isn't the mapping the question asks about.
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
That would be mre like what decider gets the Halting Question right*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually did* Every step of exactly what they did with D is shown proving the
the pathological input?
Not, Does the input Halt when run?
Look at the wrong question and of course you get the wrong answer.
And repeatedly doing that is just another form of DECEPTION and LYING.
The QUESTION ask for the mapping of D D -> {Halting, Non-Halting}
anything else is just a LIE.
isomorphic to
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
The question ask for the mapping from D,D to Halts(D,D), which exists. >>>> Remeber, the question is, and only is:That is not the question that H(D,D) is being asked.
So, you continue to lie about that.
I guess you are just incurably stupid.
Do you still remember the question of the Halting Problem?
THE REAL ONE
The same as the specific_unmarried_man
The logical law of polar questions
Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM sci.lang
When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.
Does the Machine and Input described by the input Halt when run.They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
Thus, H only gets ivolved when we are CHECKING the answer.
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.
Only in that H doesn't exist, as oesn't the man's wife.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine
described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final
state, which has
That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which is just a Red Herring, because we are NOT asking about what H
does, but about what its input represents and what H needs to do to
be correct.
an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed toIt now seems to me that you never were lying.
have specifed before you could ever actually ask the question.
You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude
that you and others were lying.
The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
No, we are biased to the truth.
Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.
But the queston isn't about the execution trace,
Yes it always was.
*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually did* >>> You disagreed with the proven facts.
How is it about the execution trace of what H or H1 sees?
simulation was correct and you denied this anyway.
The question asks NOTHING about that, so you are just proving yourself
stupid.
it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation represented
by the input (which you almost NEVER show,
That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.
Nope.
A correctly simulated D, when H(D,D) returns 0 will HALT.
PERIOD.
Any simulation that says otherwise is a LIE.
because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider gives. >>>>
On 3/13/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 05:31, olcott wrote:Halts(D,D) is a standard hypothetical function used to denote the the
On 3/13/2024 11:22 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds >>>>>>>> for other Hs.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
the correct answer is no.
That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
it does not.
It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
I did not read this article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
the correct answer is no.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO >>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NOH(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
H(D,D) -> YES
and
H(D,D) -> NO
are two mappings
I did not say that precisely enough.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
*The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
What is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)? What do those words mean?
halting behavior that D(D) actually has. It is a notational convention.
mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)
maps the actual behavior of D(D) to its actual halt status.
mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)==1 meaning that D(D) halts.
On 3/13/2024 11:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 11:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity.
On 3/13/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists. >>>>>>>>
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider HWhich is a different issue.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ >>>>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which s a lying comment since nothing in the question asks for one. >>>>>>
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to
Halts(D,D)
Which isn't the mapping the question asks about.
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
YOU ARE JUST BEING STUPID.
The Question, Does the Computation Described by your inpt (in this
case D(D) ) halt when run does NOT ask about a mappig from anything
OTHER than D(D) to Halts (D,D)
This is simply a degree of detail that you choose to ignore.
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)==1
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)???
H1(D,D) or H(D,D) are NOT "more specific" thatn D(D) when asking about
D(D)
And you are just a stupid pathological liar for saying so.
Where on earth do you get that H1 or H are in ANY WAY a "stand-in" for
the behavior of the input they are trying to decide on.
They are the thing being TESTED.
You are just showing your TOTAL and UTTER STUPIDITY here.
That would be mre like what decider gets the Halting Question right*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually did* >>> Every step of exactly what they did with D is shown proving the
the pathological input?
Not, Does the input Halt when run?
Look at the wrong question and of course you get the wrong answer.
And repeatedly doing that is just another form of DECEPTION and LYING. >>>>
The QUESTION ask for the mapping of D D -> {Halting, Non-Halting}
anything else is just a LIE.
isomorphic to
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
The question ask for the mapping from D,D to Halts(D,D), whichThat is not the question that H(D,D) is being asked.
exists.
Remeber, the question is, and only is:
So, you continue to lie about that.
I guess you are just incurably stupid.
Do you still remember the question of the Halting Problem?
THE REAL ONE
The same as the specific_unmarried_man
The logical law of polar questions
Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM sci.lang
When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.
Does the Machine and Input described by the input Halt when run.They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
Thus, H only gets ivolved when we are CHECKING the answer.
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.
Only in that H doesn't exist, as oesn't the man's wife.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO >>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine
described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final >>>>>>>> state, which has
That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO) >>>>>>> we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which is just a Red Herring, because we are NOT asking about what
H does, but about what its input represents and what H needs to do >>>>>> to be correct.
an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed >>>>>>>> to have specifed before you could ever actually ask the question. >>>>>>>>It now seems to me that you never were lying.
You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude >>>>>>> that you and others were lying.
The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
No, we are biased to the truth.
Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.
But the queston isn't about the execution trace,
Yes it always was.
*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually
did*
You disagreed with the proven facts.
How is it about the execution trace of what H or H1 sees?
simulation was correct and you denied this anyway.
Since the question is about the behavior of D(D), that is the ONLY
thing that really matters.
Great, I am glad that you see this too.
The traces might help us figure outwhy H got the answer wrong, butThe traces prove that this is correct H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1
CAN'T prove it right, for the ACTUAL QUESTION that you imply is what
you are working on.
You always disagreed with the facts of that. This was the reason
that I mistook you and others for liars.
You continued claims otherwise, just shows how pathetic your
pathological lies are.
The question asks NOTHING about that, so you are just proving
yourself stupid.
Nope.
it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation
represented by the input (which you almost NEVER show,
That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts. >>>>
A correctly simulated D, when H(D,D) returns 0 will HALT.
PERIOD.
Any simulation that says otherwise is a LIE.
because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider
gives.
On 3/13/2024 9:48 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider H
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ
Which is a different issue.
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
makes no sense because H(D,D) is not a specific TM.
I always have to have you and Richard point the bugs in my words.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
On 3/14/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-14 03:32:23 +0000, olcott said:H(D,D)==0 and Halt(D,D)==1
On 3/13/2024 9:48 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider HWhich is a different issue.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ >>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
makes no sense because H(D,D) is not a specific TM.
I always have to have you and Richard point the bugs in my words.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Of course there is.
Just map the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to
Halts(D,D). If you want a more comprehensive mapping you may map
other TM/input pairs eother to H(D,D) or to whatever you want.
On 3/14/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-14 03:32:23 +0000, olcott said:H(D,D)==0 and Halt(D,D)==1
On 3/13/2024 9:48 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider HWhich is a different issue.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ >>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
makes no sense because H(D,D) is not a specific TM.
I always have to have you and Richard point the bugs in my words.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Of course there is.
Just map the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to
Halts(D,D). If you want a more comprehensive mapping you may map
other TM/input pairs eother to H(D,D) or to whatever you want.
On 3/13/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 05:31, olcott wrote:Halts(D,D) is a standard hypothetical function used to denote the the
On 3/13/2024 11:22 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
I did not say that precisely enough.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
*The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
What is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)? What do those words mean?
halting behavior that D(D) actually has. It is a notational convention.
mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)
maps the actual behavior of D(D) to its actual halt status.
mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)==1 meaning that D(D) halts.
On 3/13/2024 11:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 11:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity.
On 3/13/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists. >>>>>>>>
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider HWhich is a different issue.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ >>>>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which s a lying comment since nothing in the question asks for one. >>>>>>
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to
Halts(D,D)
Which isn't the mapping the question asks about.
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
YOU ARE JUST BEING STUPID.
The Question, Does the Computation Described by your inpt (in this
case D(D) ) halt when run does NOT ask about a mappig from anything
OTHER than D(D) to Halts (D,D)
This is simply a degree of detail that you choose to ignore.
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)==1
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)???
H1(D,D) or H(D,D) are NOT "more specific" thatn D(D) when asking about
D(D)
And you are just a stupid pathological liar for saying so.
Where on earth do you get that H1 or H are in ANY WAY a "stand-in" for
the behavior of the input they are trying to decide on.
They are the thing being TESTED.
You are just showing your TOTAL and UTTER STUPIDITY here.
That would be mre like what decider gets the Halting Question right*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually did* >>> Every step of exactly what they did with D is shown proving the
the pathological input?
Not, Does the input Halt when run?
Look at the wrong question and of course you get the wrong answer.
And repeatedly doing that is just another form of DECEPTION and LYING. >>>>
The QUESTION ask for the mapping of D D -> {Halting, Non-Halting}
anything else is just a LIE.
isomorphic to
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
The question ask for the mapping from D,D to Halts(D,D), whichThat is not the question that H(D,D) is being asked.
exists.
Remeber, the question is, and only is:
So, you continue to lie about that.
I guess you are just incurably stupid.
Do you still remember the question of the Halting Problem?
THE REAL ONE
The same as the specific_unmarried_man
The logical law of polar questions
Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM sci.lang
When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.
Does the Machine and Input described by the input Halt when run.They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
Thus, H only gets ivolved when we are CHECKING the answer.
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
(a) and (b) are isomorphic.
Only in that H doesn't exist, as oesn't the man's wife.
Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO >>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D
But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine
described by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final >>>>>>>> state, which has
That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO) >>>>>>> we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Which is just a Red Herring, because we are NOT asking about what
H does, but about what its input represents and what H needs to do >>>>>> to be correct.
an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed >>>>>>>> to have specifed before you could ever actually ask the question. >>>>>>>>It now seems to me that you never were lying.
You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
The philosophical foundation of these things is very difficult.
It is when you and others ridiculously disagreed with the dead
obvious totally verified facts of the actual behavior behavior
of H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that gave me sufficient reason to conclude >>>>>>> that you and others were lying.
The actual truth seems to be that you and others were so biased
against my position on that you and others persistently ignored
my proof that I was correct many many dozens of times.
No, we are biased to the truth.
Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.
But the queston isn't about the execution trace,
Yes it always was.
*You disagreed that H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 did what they actually
did*
You disagreed with the proven facts.
How is it about the execution trace of what H or H1 sees?
simulation was correct and you denied this anyway.
Since the question is about the behavior of D(D), that is the ONLY
thing that really matters.
Great, I am glad that you see this too.
The traces might help us figure outwhy H got the answer wrong, butThe traces prove that this is correct H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1
CAN'T prove it right, for the ACTUAL QUESTION that you imply is what
you are working on.
You always disagreed with the facts of that. This was the reason
that I mistook you and others for liars.
On 3/14/2024 10:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/14/24 6:28 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/14/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-14 03:32:23 +0000, olcott said:H(D,D)==0 and Halt(D,D)==1
On 3/13/2024 9:48 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists. >>>>>>>>
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
and a non-existent halt decider HWhich is a different issue.
When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ >>>>>>>>
Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.
There is no mapping from
(a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
makes no sense because H(D,D) is not a specific TM.
I always have to have you and Richard point the bugs in my words.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to
Halts(D,D)
Of course there is.
So you just showed that there IS a mapping:
0 -> 1
That it the mapping of a wrong decider.
In other words you are saying that zero <is> one
On 3/14/2024 11:40 AM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 06:07, olcott wrote:
On 3/13/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 05:31, olcott wrote:Halts(D,D) is a standard hypothetical function used to denote the the
On 3/13/2024 11:22 PM, immibis wrote:
On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
I did not say that precisely enough.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
*The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity* >>>>> There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
What is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)? What do those words mean?
halting behavior that D(D) actually has. It is a notational convention.
mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)
maps the actual behavior of D(D) to its actual halt status.
mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)==1 meaning that D(D) halts.
You still did not explain what you mean by a mapping from D(D) to
Halts(D,D). You only explained what you mean by Halts(D,D).
Halts(D,D) is stipulated to correspond to the actual behavior of D(D) map(H1(D,D),Halts(D,D))==true
map(H(D,D),Halts(D,D))==false
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
∀Ĥ.H (Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ != Halts(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩))
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 114:31:42 |
| Calls: | 6,701 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,348,942 |