For any program H that might determine whether programs
halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
can pass its own source and its input to H and then
specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

When you ask a man that has never been married:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.

Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
thus the question is incorrect for H/D

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

>
> When you ask a man that has never been married:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

Which is a different issue.

>
> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.

Invalid, because it asks about a non-existant person.
Also, because it presumes facts that are not true.

>
> 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
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.

On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
> For any program H that might determine whether programs
> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
> No H can exist that handles this case.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
other Hs.

> When you ask a man that has never been married:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?

the correct answer is no.

> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.

the correct answer is no.

> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.

On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
> other Hs.
>
>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>
> the correct answer is no.

That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.

>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>
> the correct answer is no.
>
>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.

there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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)
(b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)

(a) and (b) are isomorphic.

>>
>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>> thus the question is incorrect for H/D
>>
>
> But the question isn't mapping H/D, it is mapping the Machine described
> by the input (and its input) to if it reaches a final state, which has

That <is> one half of the mapping.
To be isomorphic
mapping from specific_unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
we must have mapping from specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

> an answer, depend on the specifics of the problem, that needed to 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.

Even when I said show me the error in the execution trace many
many times you and others totally failed.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
>> other Hs.
>>
>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>
>> the correct answer is no.
>
> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.

it does not.

>
>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>
>> the correct answer is no.
>>
>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>
> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>

H(D,D) -> YES

and

H(D,D) -> NO

are two mappings

On 14/03/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>> Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
>>
>
> There is no mapping from
> (a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
> (b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
>
>>>
>>> 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)

makes no sense because H(D,D) is not a specific TM.

> (b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)

the mapping is from every unmarried_man to NO.

> (a) and (b) are isomorphic.

they are not.

>>>
>>> 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)

You have finally gone off the rails.

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.

The question ask for the mapping from D,D to Halts(D,D), which exists.
Remeber, the question is, and only is:

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.

>
>>>
>>> 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, it is the comparison of
the Behavior of the Computation represented by the input (which you
almost NEVER show, because it shows that you lying) and the answer that
the decider gives.

On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
>>> other Hs.
>>>
>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>
>>> the correct answer is no.
>>
>> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
>
> it does not.
>

It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
I did not read this article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/

>>
>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>
>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>
>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>>
>> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>>
>
> H(D,D) -> YES
>
> and
>
> H(D,D) -> NO
>
> are two mappings
>

I did not say that precisely enough.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/13/2024 9:48 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 14/03/24 02:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/13/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>> Yes, but the correct answer for the question given to H exists.
>>>
>>
>> There is no mapping from
>> (a) Specific TM: H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>> (b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>
> makes no sense because H(D,D) is not a specific TM.

I always have to have you and Richard point the bugs in my words.
There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

>
>> (b) Specific unmarried_man to stopped_beating_wife(YES/NO)
>
> the mapping is from every unmarried_man to NO.
>

*That is not how I said this back in 2015*

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.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

>> (a) and (b) are isomorphic.
>
> they are not.
>
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>
> You have finally gone off the rails.

Ad hominem/insults instead of reasoning are ridiculously foolish.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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)
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.
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.

> it is the comparison of
> the Behavior of the Computation represented by the input (which you
> almost NEVER show,

That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.

> because it shows that you lying) and the answer that
> the decider gives.
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

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?

The question asks NOTHING about that, so you are just proving yourself
stupid.

>
>> it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation represented by
>> the input (which you almost NEVER show,
>
> That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
> details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
> simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.

Nope.

A correctly simulated D, when H(D,D) returns 0 will HALT.

PERIOD.

Any simulation that says otherwise is a LIE.

>
>> because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider gives.
>>
>

On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
>>>> other Hs.
>>>>
>>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>
>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>
>>> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
>>
>> it does not.
>>
>
> It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
> I did not read this article.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
>
>>>
>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>
>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>
>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>>>
>>> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>>>
>>
>> H(D,D) -> YES
>>
>> and
>>
>> H(D,D) -> NO
>>
>> are two mappings
>>
>
> I did not say that precisely enough.
> There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.

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)

> 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.

> The question asks NOTHING about that, so you are just proving yourself
> stupid.
>
>>
>>> it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation represented
>>> by the input (which you almost NEVER show,
>>
>> That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
>> details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
>> simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.
>
> Nope.
>
> A correctly simulated D, when H(D,D) returns 0 will HALT.
>
> PERIOD.
>
> Any simulation that says otherwise is a LIE.
>
>
>>
>>> because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider gives.
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/13/2024 11:22 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds for
>>>>> other Hs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>>
>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>
>>>> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
>>>
>>> it does not.
>>>
>>
>> It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
>> I did not read this article.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>
>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>>>>
>>>> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>>>>
>>>
>>> H(D,D) -> YES
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> H(D,D) -> NO
>>>
>>> are two mappings
>>>
>>
>> I did not say that precisely enough.
>> There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>
> Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.

*The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
There is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D).
There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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)

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.

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.

You continued claims otherwise, just shows how pathetic your
pathological lies are.

>
>> The question asks NOTHING about that, so you are just proving yourself
>> stupid.
>>
>>>
>>>> it is the comparison of the Behavior of the Computation represented
>>>> by the input (which you almost NEVER show,
>>>
>>> That is a ridiculously false statement. I always show all of the
>>> details of the simulated D thus conclusively proving that it was
>>> simulated correctly. You always denied these completely proven facts.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> A correctly simulated D, when H(D,D) returns 0 will HALT.
>>
>> PERIOD.
>>
>> Any simulation that says otherwise is a LIE.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> because it shows that you lying) and the answer that the decider gives.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 14/03/24 05:31, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 11:22 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 14/03/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds
>>>>>> for other Hs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>
>>>>> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
>>>>
>>>> it does not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
>>> I did not read this article.
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> H(D,D) -> YES
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> H(D,D) -> NO
>>>>
>>>> are two mappings
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did not say that precisely enough.
>>> There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
>>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>
>> Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
>
> *The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
> There is a mapping from    D(D) to Halts(D,D).
> There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>
>

What is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)? What do those words mean?

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.
>

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:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>>>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds
>>>>>>> for other Hs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> it does not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
>>>> I did not read this article.
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D,D) -> YES
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D,D) -> NO
>>>>>
>>>>> are two mappings
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not say that precisely enough.
>>>> There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
>>>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>>
>>> Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
>>
>> *The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
>> There is a mapping from    D(D) to Halts(D,D).
>> There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>
>>
>
> What is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)? What do those words mean?
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/13/24 10:07 PM, 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:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/03/24 02:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 7:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 14/03/24 00:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs
>>>>>>>>> halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input,
>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to H and then
>>>>>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>>>>> No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a different D for every H. A lot of Hs correctly handle Ds
>>>>>>>> for other Hs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you ask a man that has never been married:
>>>>>>>>> Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That affirms a false presupposition thus cannot be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that you don't know linguistics well enough.
>>>>> I did not read this article.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from never married men to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>> thus the question is incorrect for all unmarried men.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the correct answer is no.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although there is a mapping from some TM/input pairs to YES/NO
>>>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H/D to YES/NO
>>>>>>>> H(D) isn't valid input since H has two inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there is no mapping from H(D,D) to YES/NO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(D,D) -> YES
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(D,D) -> NO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are two mappings
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not say that precisely enough.
>>>>> There is no mapping from the specific TM/input pair:
>>>>> H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>>>
>>>> Be even more precise because this doesn't seem to mean anything.
>>>
>>> *The same question exists in a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
>>> There is a mapping from    D(D) to Halts(D,D).
>>> There is a mapping from H1(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What is a mapping from D(D) to Halts(D,D)? What do those words mean?
> 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.

No, Halts(D,D) == 1 means that D(D) Halts.

It doesn't need H1(D,D) to do anything.

H1(D,D) mapping to Halts(D,D) means H1 got that input right.

Even if H1(D,D) didn't map to Halts(D,D), the fact that Halts(D,D) == 1
means D(D) Halted.

Your claim that somehow H or H1 needs to map to Halts just shows your
stupidity, and that you are still a pathological liar.

On 3/13/24 10:03 PM, 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

Which, if true, says that H1 got that answer right

> There is no mapping from H(D,D) to Halts(D,D)???

WHich says that H DIDN'T Get the answer right.

There is no reason something is illogical or invalid just because some
machine got the wrong answer, unless you are talking about the logic of
that machine.

Since H got the wrong answer, there is something wrong with its logic
for that case. Which we see is that it thinks that D(D) calling H(D,D)
means that D(D) will be non-halting, even though H(D,D) will return 0
after a finite time.

>
>> 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.

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).

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.

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.

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⟩))

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer