On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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*
>

On 3/14/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>> 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?
>>> Halts(D,D) is a standard hypothetical function used to denote the the
>>> 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⟩))
>
>

In other words, you don't know what a MAPPING means, proving your
stupiditiy and ignorance.

On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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*
>>
>
>
> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the same
> computation, as you claimed.
>

On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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*
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the same
>> computation, as you claimed.
>>
>
> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply falsely
> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I said that
> they did.

On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the
>>> same computation, as you claimed.
>>>
>>
>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply falsely
>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I said that
>> they did.
>
> Yes you did!
>
>>
>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant lie.
>>>
>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>> computation.
>
> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that made H right?
>

On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the
>>>> same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply falsely
>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I said that
>>> they did.
>>
>> Yes you did!
>>
>>>
>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant lie.
>>>>
>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>> computation.
>>
>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that made H
>> right?
>>
>
> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>

On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the
>>>>> same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply falsely
>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I said that
>>>> they did.
>>>
>>> Yes you did!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant lie.
>>>>>
>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>> computation.
>>>
>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that made H
>>> right?
>>>
>>
>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>
>
> Nope, I know what you said.
>
> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>
> I don't work for free.
>
>

On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the
>>>>>> same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply
>>>>> falsely
>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I said
>>>>> that
>>>>> they did.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>> computation.
>>>>
>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that made H
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>
>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>
>> I don't work for free.
>>
>>
>
> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not lying*
> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute different
> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.

On 3/14/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of the
>>>>>>> same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply
>>>>>> falsely
>>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I said
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that made
>>>>> H right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>>>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>>
>>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>>
>>> I don't work for free.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not lying*
>> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute different
>> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.
>
> And you are just lying about that.
>
> Nope, you are just shown to continue the lies.
>
> Are you willing to committ to say a 50k bounty (+ collection costs if
> you don't pay) if I can show your implied and agreed that they were?
>
You make a claim.
I claim you are mistaken.
You can either find the quote and refute me or we drop it as unresolved.

On 3/14/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of
>>>>>>>> the same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply
>>>>>>> falsely
>>>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>>>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I
>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>> they did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant
>>>>>>>> lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that made
>>>>>> H right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>>>>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>>>
>>>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>>>
>>>> I don't work for free.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not lying*
>>> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute different
>>> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.
>>
>> And you are just lying about that.
>>
>> Nope, you are just shown to continue the lies.
>>
>> Are you willing to committ to say a 50k bounty (+ collection costs if
>> you don't pay) if I can show your implied and agreed that they were?
>>
> You make a claim.
> I claim you are mistaken.
> You can either find the quote and refute me or we drop it as unresolved.

On 3/14/2024 11:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of
>>>>>>>>> the same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply
>>>>>>>> falsely
>>>>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at the
>>>>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I
>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>> they did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a blatant
>>>>>>>>> lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that
>>>>>>> made H right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>>>>>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't work for free.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not lying*
>>>> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute different
>>>> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.
>>>
>>> And you are just lying about that.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are just shown to continue the lies.
>>>
>>> Are you willing to committ to say a 50k bounty (+ collection costs if
>>> you don't pay) if I can show your implied and agreed that they were?
>>>
>> You make a claim.
>> I claim you are mistaken.
>> You can either find the quote and refute me or we drop it as unresolved.
>
> We can drop it as it isn't really important.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> That you never reviewed the execution traces proving that the steps
>>>> of simulation were always correct seemed so ridiculously disingenuous
>>>> that this seemed to be a sufficient basis for calling you (and others)
>>>> a liar at the time. I now accept that you are not a liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But I have, and even commented on them, so you are just mistaken there.
>>
>> You never looked at them well enough to confirm that
>> H1(D,D) and H(D,D) were simulated correctly.
>>
>
> Nope, in fact I frequently pointed out that H FAILED to correctly
> simulate as its simulation of the CALL H assumed that H would not return.
>
The execution traces prove that HH(D,D) must abort and H1(D,D) need not
abort.

On 3/14/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 11:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of
>>>>>>>>>> the same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you simply
>>>>>>>>> falsely
>>>>>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I
>>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>>> they did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a
>>>>>>>>>> blatant lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that
>>>>>>>> made H right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>>>>>>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't work for free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not lying*
>>>>> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute
>>>>> different
>>>>> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.
>>>>
>>>> And you are just lying about that.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you are just shown to continue the lies.
>>>>
>>>> Are you willing to committ to say a 50k bounty (+ collection costs
>>>> if you don't pay) if I can show your implied and agreed that they were?
>>>>
>>> You make a claim.
>>> I claim you are mistaken.
>>> You can either find the quote and refute me or we drop it as unresolved.
>>
>> We can drop it as it isn't really important.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you never reviewed the execution traces proving that the steps
>>>>> of simulation were always correct seemed so ridiculously disingenuous
>>>>> that this seemed to be a sufficient basis for calling you (and others)
>>>>> a liar at the time. I now accept that you are not a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I have, and even commented on them, so you are just mistaken there.
>>>
>>> You never looked at them well enough to confirm that
>>> H1(D,D) and H(D,D) were simulated correctly.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, in fact I frequently pointed out that H FAILED to correctly
>> simulate as its simulation of the CALL H assumed that H would not return.
>>
> The execution traces prove that HH(D,D) must abort and H1(D,D) need not
> abort.

On 3/15/2024 12:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/14/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 11:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/14/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies of
>>>>>>>>>>> the same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you
>>>>>>>>>> simply falsely
>>>>>>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look
>>>>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I
>>>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>>>> they did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a
>>>>>>>>>>> blatant lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that
>>>>>>>>> made H right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the same
>>>>>>>> computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't work for free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not
>>>>>> lying*
>>>>>> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you are just lying about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you are just shown to continue the lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you willing to committ to say a 50k bounty (+ collection costs
>>>>> if you don't pay) if I can show your implied and agreed that they
>>>>> were?
>>>>>
>>>> You make a claim.
>>>> I claim you are mistaken.
>>>> You can either find the quote and refute me or we drop it as
>>>> unresolved.
>>>
>>> We can drop it as it isn't really important.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you never reviewed the execution traces proving that the steps
>>>>>> of simulation were always correct seemed so ridiculously disingenuous
>>>>>> that this seemed to be a sufficient basis for calling you (and
>>>>>> others)
>>>>>> a liar at the time. I now accept that you are not a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I have, and even commented on them, so you are just mistaken
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> You never looked at them well enough to confirm that
>>>> H1(D,D) and H(D,D) were simulated correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, in fact I frequently pointed out that H FAILED to correctly
>>> simulate as its simulation of the CALL H assumed that H would not
>>> return.
>>>
>> The execution traces prove that HH(D,D) must abort and H1(D,D) need
>> not abort.
>
> Yes, if H was different, and thus the WHOLLE PROBLEM is different, an H
> that doesn't abort shows that everything gets caught in an infinite loop.
>
> This does NOT mean that for an H that aborts, it has to abort, as it is
> looking at a DIFFERENT problem.
>
> H1 PROVES that the outer H doesn't need to abort the simulation of the D
> calling an H that does.
>
> H just can't do two different things, so is on the horns of a dilemma.
>
>>
>>> There were MANY arguments where you tried to claim that a partial
>>> simulation of N steps WAS a correct simulation that allowed it use to
>>> show non-halting.
>>
>> As soon as H(D,D) sees a 100% definite non-halting behavior pattern
>> then H(D,D) must abort the simulation of its input.
>
> How can it be 100% definite non-halting behavior when you admit that
> D(D) halts even though it has the pattern in it (And H1 verifies it)
>
> It may be you can try to claim "Needs to abort" with some strained
> definitions, but it can't be a correct Halting Determination, which is
> what the actual problem is.
>
>>
>> *That 100% definite non-halting behavior pattern is shown below*
>>
>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>> [00001d22][00102fc9][00000000] 55         push ebp        ; begin main()
>> [00001d23][00102fc9][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00001d25][00102fc5][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22   ; push DD
>> [00001d2a][00102fc1][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22   ; push DD
>> [00001d2f][00102fbd][00001d34] e80ef6ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
>> New slave_stack at:10306d
>>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
>> [00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
>> [00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
>> [00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax        ; push DD
>> [00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx        ; push DD
>> [00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
>> New slave_stack at:14da95
>
> Note, incorrect simulation follows, should be a simulation of H
> simulating its input
>
>
>> [00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
>> [00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51         push ecx
>> [00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50         push eax        ; push DD
>> [00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51         push ecx        ; push DD
>> [00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
>> Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped return 0 to main()
>>
>>
>
> Which is incorrect
>
> Since if H does this (returns 0), then the above call to H will also be
> returned to.
>
> Unless of course, H isn't actually a computation and thus you have been
> lying for years.
>
> You did try to do that, so I won't put you past trying it again.

On 3/15/24 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 12:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 11:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/14/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so IF they were two copies
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the same computation, as you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that they were the same computation, you
>>>>>>>>>>> simply falsely
>>>>>>>>>>> assumed that on the basis that you adamantly refused to look
>>>>>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>>>>> proof that H1(D,D) and H(D,D) did correctly do exactly what I
>>>>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>>>>> they did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes you did!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Omitting that qualification just makes your statement a
>>>>>>>>>>>> blatant lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to find where I ever said that they are the same
>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If they weren't then why would you bring H1 up and claim that
>>>>>>>>>> made H right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words you know that I never said that they are the
>>>>>>>>> same computation, thus I am not the Liar here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, I know what you said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Authorize payment of search time, and I wll work on it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't work for free.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I say that I never said that and that you are mistaken yet not
>>>>>>> lying*
>>>>>>> Now that we both understand how H(D,D) and H1(D,D) do compute
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> results your claims to the contrary have been fully refuted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you are just lying about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you are just shown to continue the lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you willing to committ to say a 50k bounty (+ collection costs
>>>>>> if you don't pay) if I can show your implied and agreed that they
>>>>>> were?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You make a claim.
>>>>> I claim you are mistaken.
>>>>> You can either find the quote and refute me or we drop it as
>>>>> unresolved.
>>>>
>>>> We can drop it as it isn't really important.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you never reviewed the execution traces proving that the steps
>>>>>>> of simulation were always correct seemed so ridiculously
>>>>>>> disingenuous
>>>>>>> that this seemed to be a sufficient basis for calling you (and
>>>>>>> others)
>>>>>>> a liar at the time. I now accept that you are not a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I have, and even commented on them, so you are just mistaken
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never looked at them well enough to confirm that
>>>>> H1(D,D) and H(D,D) were simulated correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, in fact I frequently pointed out that H FAILED to correctly
>>>> simulate as its simulation of the CALL H assumed that H would not
>>>> return.
>>>>
>>> The execution traces prove that HH(D,D) must abort and H1(D,D) need
>>> not abort.
>>
>> Yes, if H was different, and thus the WHOLLE PROBLEM is different, an
>> H that doesn't abort shows that everything gets caught in an infinite
>> loop.
>>
>> This does NOT mean that for an H that aborts, it has to abort, as it
>> is looking at a DIFFERENT problem.
>>
>> H1 PROVES that the outer H doesn't need to abort the simulation of the
>> D calling an H that does.
>>
>> H just can't do two different things, so is on the horns of a dilemma.
>>
>>>
>>>> There were MANY arguments where you tried to claim that a partial
>>>> simulation of N steps WAS a correct simulation that allowed it use
>>>> to show non-halting.
>>>
>>> As soon as H(D,D) sees a 100% definite non-halting behavior pattern
>>> then H(D,D) must abort the simulation of its input.
>>
>> How can it be 100% definite non-halting behavior when you admit that
>> D(D) halts even though it has the pattern in it (And H1 verifies it)
>>
>> It may be you can try to claim "Needs to abort" with some strained
>> definitions, but it can't be a correct Halting Determination, which is
>> what the actual problem is.
>>
>>>
>>> *That 100% definite non-halting behavior pattern is shown below*
>>>
>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>> [00001d22][00102fc9][00000000] 55         push ebp        ; begin main()
>>> [00001d23][00102fc9][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001d25][00102fc5][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22   ; push DD
>>> [00001d2a][00102fc1][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22   ; push DD
>>> [00001d2f][00102fbd][00001d34] e80ef6ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
>>> New slave_stack at:10306d
>>>
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
>>> [00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
>>> [00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
>>> [00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax        ; push DD
>>> [00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx        ; push DD
>>> [00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
>>> New slave_stack at:14da95
>>
>> Note, incorrect simulation follows, should be a simulation of H
>> simulating its input
>>
>>
>>> [00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
>>> [00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51         push ecx
>>> [00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50         push eax        ; push DD
>>> [00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51         push ecx        ; push DD
>>> [00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
>>> Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped return 0 to main()
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is incorrect
>>
>> Since if H does this (returns 0), then the above call to H will also
>> be returned to.
>>
>> Unless of course, H isn't actually a computation and thus you have
>> been lying for years.
>>
>> You did try to do that, so I won't put you past trying it again.
>
> *I more clearly prove that I have never lied in this post*
> [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]