On 3/16/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 6:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-03-15 16:24:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/15/2024 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-14 19:07:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 11:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/03/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a non-existent halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It now seems to me that you never were lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *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
>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>> but CAN'T prove it right, for the ACTUAL QUESTION that you imply
>>>>>>>> is what you are working on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The traces prove that this is correct H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1
>>>>>>> You always disagreed with the facts of that. This was the reason
>>>>>>> that I mistook you and others for liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The traces prove that H(D,D) returns 0. The traces do not prove
>>>>>> that 0 is the correct answer for a halting decider when (D,D) is
>>>>>> the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is a correct statement:
>>>>>> H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is an incorrect statement:
>>>>>> A halting decider returns 0 when (D,D) is the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> The traces prove that H(D,D) returns 0 and H1(D,D) returns 1 and
>>>>> Richard and many others kept insisting that it was impossible for
>>>>> it to do what it actually did do, directly denying the easily
>>>>> verified facts many many dozens of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is why I called all these people despicable liars*
>>>>
>>>> That is also why others call you a liar (though not despicable as
>>>> far as I have seen). The truth is that
>>>>
>>>>>> The following is a correct statement:
>>>>>> H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is an incorrect statement:
>>>>>> A halting decider returns 0 when (D,D) is the input.
>>>>
>>>> as immibis said. You already have proven the first part
>>>> and that D(D) halts. The latter part follows from the
>>>> definition when D(D) halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Already addressed in my new thread*
>>> [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]
>>
>> All that has been and soulc be discussed here does not fit to
>> the narrow scope specified by that head line.
>>
>
> *Back to the title of this thread*
>
> 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
>
> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> and
> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>
>

On 3/16/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/16/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/16/2024 6:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-15 16:24:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-14 19:07:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 11:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/03/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a non-existent halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It now seems to me that you never were lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *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 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,
>>>>>>>>> but CAN'T prove it right, for the ACTUAL QUESTION that you
>>>>>>>>> imply is what you are working on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The traces prove that this is correct H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1
>>>>>>>> You always disagreed with the facts of that. This was the reason
>>>>>>>> that I mistook you and others for liars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The traces prove that H(D,D) returns 0. The traces do not prove
>>>>>>> that 0 is the correct answer for a halting decider when (D,D) is
>>>>>>> the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is a correct statement:
>>>>>>> H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is an incorrect statement:
>>>>>>> A halting decider returns 0 when (D,D) is the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The traces prove that H(D,D) returns 0 and H1(D,D) returns 1 and
>>>>>> Richard and many others kept insisting that it was impossible for
>>>>>> it to do what it actually did do, directly denying the easily
>>>>>> verified facts many many dozens of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is why I called all these people despicable liars*
>>>>>
>>>>> That is also why others call you a liar (though not despicable as
>>>>> far as I have seen). The truth is that
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is a correct statement:
>>>>>>> H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is an incorrect statement:
>>>>>>> A halting decider returns 0 when (D,D) is the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> as immibis said. You already have proven the first part
>>>>> and that D(D) halts. The latter part follows from the
>>>>> definition when D(D) halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Already addressed in my new thread*
>>>> [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]
>>>
>>> All that has been and soulc be discussed here does not fit to
>>> the narrow scope specified by that head line.
>>>
>>
>> *Back to the title of this thread*
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>> and
>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>
>>
>
> In other words, to you, ALL objective question are invalid in
> Computation theory, because we can given them to a decider that gives
> the wrong answer.
>

On 3/16/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/16/24 7:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2024 6:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-15 16:24:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/15/2024 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-14 19:07:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 11:41 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 14/03/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a non-existent halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are both YES/NO questions lacking a correct YES/NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just LYING about what the question actually is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It now seems to me that you never were lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *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 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,
>>>>>>>>>> but CAN'T prove it right, for the ACTUAL QUESTION that you
>>>>>>>>>> imply is what you are working on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The traces prove that this is correct H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1
>>>>>>>>> You always disagreed with the facts of that. This was the reason
>>>>>>>>> that I mistook you and others for liars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The traces prove that H(D,D) returns 0. The traces do not prove
>>>>>>>> that 0 is the correct answer for a halting decider when (D,D) is
>>>>>>>> the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is a correct statement:
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is an incorrect statement:
>>>>>>>> A halting decider returns 0 when (D,D) is the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The traces prove that H(D,D) returns 0 and H1(D,D) returns 1 and
>>>>>>> Richard and many others kept insisting that it was impossible for
>>>>>>> it to do what it actually did do, directly denying the easily
>>>>>>> verified facts many many dozens of times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is why I called all these people despicable liars*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is also why others call you a liar (though not despicable as
>>>>>> far as I have seen). The truth is that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is a correct statement:
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is an incorrect statement:
>>>>>>>> A halting decider returns 0 when (D,D) is the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as immibis said. You already have proven the first part
>>>>>> and that D(D) halts. The latter part follows from the
>>>>>> definition when D(D) halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Already addressed in my new thread*
>>>>> [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]
>>>>
>>>> All that has been and soulc be discussed here does not fit to
>>>> the narrow scope specified by that head line.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Back to the title of this thread*
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
>>> and
>>> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>
>>> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
>>> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In other words, to you, ALL objective question are invalid in
>> Computation theory, because we can given them to a decider that gives
>> the wrong answer.
>>
>
> Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct*
> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then
> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> *No that is not it*
> All inputs posed to every algorithm for a specific decision criteria
> that have undecidable instances because these instances contradict
> the answer provided by the algorithm are incorrect questions that
> must either be changed or rejected.
> (a) Change the question to the above criteria.
> (b) Reject inputs that match recursive simulation as invalid.
>
>
>> Remember, H gets the wrong answer not because the actual question
>> doesn't have one, but because its programming gives the other one.
>>
>> Sounds just like you to object to someone saying that Truth actually
>> matters.
>>
>
> Carol's Question posed to Carol:
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
> and
> Does Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt? posed to Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> lack a correct answer because this answer is contradicted.
> *Incorrect questions lack correct answers*
>