Talk:Ur-Didact

WTF! I read that he was the father, not lover! -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted) 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to the possibility of a filial relationship: If the Librarian is indeed filial to the Didact, they never speak as anything but equals. I think people are confused by the message displayed upon initial access to Terminal Seven: when a son writes his father and tells him of his courage. It would seem to be nothing more than a random message that found its way into the Terminal. There were already so many errors and anomalies in all the Terminals' memories that an aberrant message is not surprising. Kori126 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In terminal 6 (I think) it say that he had a son and that the son had decided to go and fight the Flood and what's with the thing about him being an AI he got to be a person as he created 'Offensive Bias' and Offensive Bias defeated Mendicant Bias --MCDBBlits 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Should here be the question from first Halo, from Two Betroyals. That when Guilty Spark asks Chief: "Last time you asked me, would I do it?" Or something like that. If Didact activated rings from Halo 4, he would have asked that question.

Wait, something or whatnot said something that like John-117 was a descendent of this Forerunner? That's pretty cool, but is there a more precise reference, or does one simply have to scan through the Terminals?

Didact lived through the activation?
I do not think that didact activated the Halo array from Installation 04. Here's why:
 * In the terminals Didact urges the librarian to come back behind the line (aka. Maginot sphere)which we can assume at the center was the Ark.(I can cite the terminals if need be)
 * In the array data recorder file from IRIS, one of the lines reads "Confrm: Array sync …1…2…3…4…5…6…7…{check}" which implies that it was fired from installation 00*If Didact had been at installation 04 it was likely he would have been captured (provided that it was outside the sphere)

Thoughts? comments? suggestions? Motarius 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -The Didact obviously activated Installations 01-07 from somewhere, but yes it need not have been from Installation 04. But the Ark is outside the galaxy, whilst the Forerunners inhabited worlds inside the galaxy. They needed Keyships and Portals to access the Ark, did they not? The Librarian said "I've remotely destroyed our Keyships. A security measure. Without them I cannot reach the Ark. But neither then can the thing.". It seemed inside the Maginot sphere was a collection of the worlds most important to the Forerunners. There might have been (and probably was) a Portal inside the Maginot sphere for travel to the Ark, if that is what you mean by "at the centre was the Ark". But I do not think the Ark itself was at the centre of Maginot sphere.
 * -How does a simple confirmation of Array synchronicity imply that the Installations were activated from 00? It simply means they were synchronised...
 * -I thought fauna died no matter where they were in the galaxy, even if they were on a Ring.
 * -Hes must have activated the Halo array from one of the rings. The Ark is outside of their effective firing range, therefore it probably wouldn't have killed him if he activated it from the Ark. --Hotdamnitsaaron 02:00, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * -The Didact speaks of dying (so it seems to me) in his last letter to the Librarian. I think he expected to die. Kori126 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Forerunner page the trivia section says that Didact survived, can someone confirm this for me plz User:Captain-One


 * I looked and did not see that, but how could the Didact have survived the activation of Installations 01-07? Offensive Bias was the only one left to interpret the messages and records and data. Kori126 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what his final words were? Drsdino 20:05, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

I concur that Didact did not die in the firing of the Arrays, but was on the Ark at the time. --demandread

EVIDENCE FOR DIDACT SURVIVING:

In their conversations about preserving samples of life, Didact pleads for her to "Come home," she responds that she "can't justify using the [transit measure] to save my own skin when there are so many innocents to protect and index... Every vessel we can fill, we send to the Ark" This strongly suggests that the transit measure referred to is the portal/keyship system to the Ark, and she would rather use it to save other lives than her own. This implies that Didact is on the ark, because he retorts: "If you will not come to me, I will come to you." It is further apparent that Didact is on the Ark, and was pleading for the Librarian to join him there, evidenced when the Gravemind begins to move on the offensive. The Librarian warns Didact: "It's coming for you. I've remotely destroyed our Keyships. A security measure. Without them I cannot reach the Ark. But neither can the thing." It is clear that the ideal scenario was for her to reach the Ark, and by proxy, Didact. The Librarian seems to understand that she will perish along with the Gravemind, but gives no indication that Didact will die. She says "You've outwitted it, my love. And now you can destroy it. But you cannot save me." Similarly, Didact bemoans that he is forced to kill the Librarian, but makes no reference to his own death. "My inaction and foolishness kept me here ...[and] makes me your executioner". Didact also indicates that he will go on the Great Journey (presumably, restoring the native species from the Ark back to their homeworlds and then leaving the galaxy) on his own, after the firing of the Array. Not only does this mean he would have to survive the activation of the Halos, but strongly suggests that he was on the Ark throughout the conversations with the Librarian. "I will burn this stinking menace in your name. And then? I will begin our Great Journey without you". EVIDENCE AGAINST DIDACT DYING:

If the Great Journey = Death, as so bluntly put by General5_7, it makes no sense that Didact would say "I will begin our Great Journey without you", as they would both be dead. On multiple occasions, Didact argues that the Librarian should return to him "where [his] fleets can keep [her] safe", and makes efforts to "rescue" her. Up until the last moment, Didact was still intent on rescuing her, when rampant Mendicant "destroyed [her] waiting rescue party." What would have been the point of rescuing her if all were about to die? When Didact first creates Mendicant, in the hopes that it will delay the flood long enough to rescue the Librarian, she rebukes his plan and calls it a "suicidal scheme". If they were all going to die, trying to be together in death would not be suicidal.</li> When it is apparent that Mendicant has turned and Gravemind is on the offensive, Didact reports that the various "fleets are all being recalled" and that "systems are evacuating". If there were going to be zero Forerunner survivors from the activation, as suggested by Kori126, there would be absolutely no point in recalling or evacuating anybody.


 * Strong evidence, but please do not conduct edit wars on the article. Explain it here (as you just did) and if you all come to a consensus, find a way to work it into the article.  Smoke Sound off! 18:25, December 9, 2009 (UTC)We agree, The only conceivable reason the communications within the terminals end, is that the Librarian was dead, and Didact no longer had any reason to communicate with her. While the ark may have had a way of transporting life back to the worlds without the Forerunner's directing the reseeding, it is equally likely that they did it themselves. Mendicant Bias's actions in the end are enough to prove they survived. Why else would he make John and example to his creators? The Dead can't offer forgiveness for past sins.ProphetofTruth 19:01, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that Didact activated the array, but the picture that says it's him in the article should be put to the bodom of the page and said "Possibly Didact from the Halo Legends short, Origins." or something allong those lines. - Annonomus 8:05, 4 January, 2009 (UTC)</li></ul>

Both of those headlines say the same thing. "Evidence 'for' Didact Surviving" and "Evidence 'against' Didact Dying." ~Hotdamnitsaaron

Article Properties

In my opinion, I think that the symbol that represents Didact should be taken out of the Gallery, the Gallery be closed, and put the symbol either above or below the picture of Didact from Halo Legends' Origins I episode.

It's a small change and maybe a few would agree--I'm sort of new to Halopedia in general. I just think it'd nice aesthetically and provide an image to capture a user's eye.

I HAVE THE ULTIMATE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS NOT ALIVE AFTER THE FIRING!!! HE WAS KILLED BY FABER BEFORE THE ARAY WAS EVEN FIRED!!!! SO STOP THIS DISCUSSION AS IT IS IRRELEVANT!! Vegerot ( talk )  19:08, 21 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cryptum Info
According to Halo: Cryptum, the Didact was in his Cryptum for at least 1,000 years, then was reawakened after the Flood returned and shortly before Mendicant Bias was revealed to be rampant. Doesn't that contradict the timeline in the Terminals?SPARTAN-347 19:29, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Not necessarily, at the end of Cryptum the character Bornstellar seems to accept becomeing the Didact from the mutation and memories recieved by it. It also seems to me that the Libraian on page 339 talks to Bornstellar as if he is now the Didact. I think that while The Didact was killed by the Master Builder on the San'Shyuum quarantine planet his persona lives on to the end in Bornstellar and that he might be the one communicating in the Terminals not the actual Didact.Deep Reverence 00:18, 13 January 2011 (EST)

That's true, and with Bornstellar being the Didact, the Librarian-Didact dialogues in terminals one, two, four, six and seven make contextual sense, as they would have happened after Bornstellar became the Didact and was preparing to fire the Array. It's terminal three that's the troublemaker: - the Didact: "We have the answer. We've built Mendicant Bias. It's a contender class AI, unlike anything we've ever achieved.

And we've observed a pattern it can exploit."

This implies that the Didact was awake when the Flood returned, and that Mendicant Bias was built sometime during the war. Cryptum would seem to indicate that the Didact was in hibernation during that timespan.

-Librarian: "Are you insane? Would you risk every life in the galaxy for this transparently futile plan? Have you learned nothing in these last [300 years[?]]?"

Again, suggesting he was awake for the 300 years preceding Cryptum. EDIT: had a thought - maybe he was in hibernation for a much, much shorter timespan than 1000 years (It's never really stated how long - Bornstellar guesses 1,000 years, and the Didact never really confirms or denies that guess.) SPARTAN-347 14:20, 14 January 2011 (EST)

I am starting to get confused. So from now on can we call the Original Didact "Didact1" and the Bornstellar/Didcact "Didact2" please; because this is getting confusing. I think the Didact1 confirms his Hibernation-span at some point. But it is also possible that the IDEA for Mendicant Bias was though up by the Didact1. But at that point, a Contender Class AI was nothing more than a theory. And it took the Forerunners 1,000 years to build Mendicant and deploy him. So the Didact1 told her of their new idea. A while later he went into the Cryptum and while in the Cryptum, all that stuff happened. Then after the book the Didact2 does all the stuff with the messages in the Terminals. And about the ordering of the Terminals; I have an answer. The Terminals don't HAVE to be in order. So the timeline of the Terminals could be way off. So the 1st one could actually be 20 years after the second one. Or in this case, the 3rd one could be 1,000 years before the 1st Terminal is. Vegerot ( talk )  14:42, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!


 * Are we sure Didact isn't a rank like Librarian? If there are more didacts, we could separate them and change the name of this article to make sure everyone knows the difference - I can only think of "The Didact", though.--  Fore  run  ner '' 14:48, 20 February 2011 (EST)

@Vegerot: Yeah, I think the most likely explanation is that the terminals are out of order, but that still doesn't solve a few things; When the Didact is talking to the Librarian about Mendicant Bias, he makes it sound like she is in immediate danger, which would imply the Forerunner-Flood war is on by that point. That would be impossible if it was sent before he went into the Cryptum

@Forerunner: It looks like Librarian/Didact are more of "nicknames" than ranks, so I think the Didact is the only one SPARTAN-347 15:35, 20 February 2011 (EST)


 * Wasn't 'The Librarian' the third to use that name, though?--  Fore  run  ner '' 15:42, 20 February 2011 (EST)

So I have the Terminals open in another tab and I think I have an idea. It could be that he programmed him or something??? Vegerot ( talk )  18:21, 20 February 2011 (EST)

GOT IT!!!!!!!!!! I know what Greg Bear was thinking!!!!!! Greg Bear is A LOT smarter then I thought he was!! He anticipated this discussion and came up with a solution!! Now bear (no pun intended. actually, sure, pun intended) with me here! So 1st. Stick to my 1st theory, then add this in. It was stated by [crap I forgot] that it was NOT the Gravemind that controlled Mendicant Bias!!! So I think this is what happens. Some time later [in his next books] the gang (with the Didact2) is gonna go, find this non-parasitic thing that is controlling Mendicant Bias, and they are gonna destroy, or somehow free Mendicant. After they free him, they are gonna put him through a couple loyalty test, and he's gonna pass. So, a couple weeks (days, months, or even years. the Forerunners are a very "patient" species) later, the Forerunners find the Floods weakness. So now, they repurpose Mendicant, instead of being the Halo overseer, they repurpose him to attack and destroy the Flood. THEN that's when the Gravemind makes him betray the Forerunners. lol, so if my theory is right, then Mendicant betrayed the Forerunners twice. And one question you probably have is "If Mendicant betrayed the Forerunners once, why give him a second chance, he is only an AI?". And here's my answer. Mendicant Bias is the only Contender-Class AI in existence. So, adding in my 1st theory, it took around 1,000 years to create and construct him. So he was far to valuable to just scap, so they did the repurposing. So, THAT could explain the Terminal incident!!!!! Vegerot ( talk )  18:38, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, that idea is not too bad. Just a few things: There were more than one Contender-class AI, as stated by the Librarian, and it's never said that Mendicant wasn't being controlled by the Gravemind in the book - he says he has a "new master", which would be either the Precursor or the Gravemind. Also, if Mendicant were just being "re-programmed," then the terminal entry wouldn't say "we've created Mendicant Bias" SPARTAN-347 19:49, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Wow... Way to burst my bubble *under my breath* bitch. Okay, man, I'll like to see YOU come up with that idea. Hang on a couple of minuets,I gotta think of a counter to that. *under my breath again* bitch.... Vegerot  ( talk )  21:31, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, to your multiple Contender AIs. That doesn't say much. There may be more than one, but still not enough to just be destroyed and forgotten. As there are only five Metarch-classes at any time. [Halo: Cryptum, when Didact2 is on the ship heading to the Capital] Vegerot ( talk )  21:32, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!
 * Also, can we start citing where we get our data from. Don't be scared we don't have to do it the fancy way just put it in brackets like this [Halo: The Flood, somewhere in the middle when Spark betrays him]. Just to make it more... "sophisticated". Also, it will make it A LOT easier to get data when I know where YOU got it from. Just do it as a favor, Please? Vegerot  ( talk )  21:52, 20 February 2011 (EST)!

The Didact2 says that he highly doubts that it was the Gravemind, rather some other force [327. Guess which book, dumb-ass]. And when it "created" that could have simply been a poor --or good-- choice of words. It might have been a good choice of words as now Mendicant Bias has been reprogrammed and they have definitely added weapons, data on how to destroy the Gravemind, etc. Why, the Forerunners practically CREATED something new. (although mainly the Hardware. But still software upgrades too. What now?! Want to say something to burst my bubble?! Just kidding man, we're cool. Vegerot  ( talk )  22:16, 20 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!!!

No, what I was saying is I actually think that idea could be correct, I'm just pointing out two things that were a little off. The Librarian mentions the multiple Contender-class AIs at the end of the second-to-last chapter of Cryptum, and the terminal quote was the first line of terminal three SPARTAN-347 22:08, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Dang man, when I tried to post my response to your 1st one, it said that you edited in the middle of my editing (hate it when that happens). But yeah listen to my reason. If Metarch-classes were so valuable that there was only 5 Metarch-classes at a time. Imagine how valuable Contender-classes must be. Vegerot ( talk )  19:03, 21 February 2011 (EST)!

I'm guessing the lack of speech (or text) means that we all agree that I am right? Vegerot ( talk )  19:03, 21 February 2011 (EST)!!!!!!!

Hey, just got some more information. I was just replaying The Ark on Legendary and when I was reading the last terminal I found something. "They repurposed {~} into a weapon to use against {~}" That could possibly support my theory that they repurposed him to attack the Gravemind, rather than control the rings. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot ( talk )  16:04, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Yep. There were multiple Contender class AI's. 92.29.192.34 14:58, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The "The"
On the page for The Rookie, we've made it clear that the character is to be referred to as "THE Rookie", as it is his title and obviously not his name. Cryptum now seems to have done a similar thing but confirming that "Didact" is not actually the signature character's name, as he is consistently referred to as now as "THE Didact". Same goes for The Librarian. In keeping with then so-called "title policy" then, this page should have to be moved to "The Didact", as it follows the same rules as followed by "The Rookie." Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 10:08, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Done. Vegerot ( talk )  21:35, 20 February 2011 (EST)!

Actually, now I'm not so sure. Someone who edited the page "Meta" on the rvb wikia gave a pretty good reason not to. Hang on, I'll get it in a sec.
 * Kgman: the character's actual name is "The Meta", not just "Meta". He is referred to as "The Meta" throughout the entire series.
 * Sniperteam82308: Wrong again. He may be refereed to as The Meta but if you were constantly refereed to as The Kgman your user name would still be Kgman.

So I'm not really sure if we should keep it the way it is, or move it to "Didact". Because you wouldn't walk up to him and say, "Hey, The Didact! What's up?!", you would say, "Hey, Didact! What's up?!". Aya! Vegerot ( talk )  21:21, 26 March 2011 (EDT)!!!!


 * People in ODST say "Hey, Rookie!" and yet his title is still "The Rookie." Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)


 * They don't - they say "Hey, rookie". The definitive article separates the character from his description. Meanwhile, the article is used here to distinguish him from his title - it's "The Didact" or "Unnamed didact" - take your pick.--  Fore  run  ner '' 10:58, 27 March 2011 (EDT)


 * But in Halo Cryptum, Didact states (or actually, Bornstellar just as he's starting to unlock Didact) that "Didact" was his nickname, not a rank. If it was his rank, then that would be a different story. But it isn't his rank. Vegerot  ( talk )  11:26, 27 March 2011 (EDT)!!!!!!
 * I said "title". It's a title just like "Librarian" - more than one person has been referred to by it. Therefore, you must disambiguate name from title. --  Fore  run  ner '' 16:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Who else has been called that? Again, it's not a rank, it's a nickname. Vegerot  ( talk )  19:09, 27 March 2011 (EDT)!!!!


 * I'd prefer it if you actually read my comments before replying. Note that I said 'title', as opposed to 'rank' and even confirmed from a previous reply that I indeed said 'title', as opposed to 'rank'. Supreme Commander, the position held by Thel 'Vadamee before October 2552, is a title - his rank was Fleet Master.--  Fore  run  ner '' 20:11, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Voting
I think we should change it back to "Didact". For the reasons stated above. Vegerot ( talk )  10:49, 27 March 2011 (EDT)!!!

- All reforms have pro-'U turners'; we probably had the same opposition to using "unnamed" before an unnamed character's page title.--  Fore  run  ner '' 10:58, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

- Forerunner summed it up nicely Forgive My English TALK TO ME BABY 11:11, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

- As per above. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

- Overall, I'm against using "the" in article titles because if this gets adopted into common usage, one could argue we should also call pages like "Battle of Earth" "The Battle of Earth" because the "the" is used most of the time. And I'd rather not see that becoming a trend. On the other hand, using "the" should be acceptable when the subject is never referred to without it, e.g. the Rubble. However, since the Halo Waypoint glossary identifies the character as The Didact, I'm just going to agree that should also be his title. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 14:36, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Bornstellar/Didact
Since this seems to be becoming an edit war, there needs to be a proper resolution on the matter of where we should have the biographical information about the Didact after his original body died. I definitely believe it belongs in this article; the fact that the Didact's consciousness happens to inhabit Bornstellar's body is irrelevant. It's not the same Didact, not in that he lacks the experiences of the original Didact immediately preceding his death, but more like a "backup copy" in control of another body. It should also be noted that in Primordium, the reincarnated Didact is consistently referred to as the Didact. If he was merely Bornstellar's consciousness making decisions based on the Didact's knowledge, then he'd be referred to as Bornstellar.

Bottom line; the consciousness in Bornstellar's body isn't Bornstellar anymore; whether Born's personality is completely dead or just buried under the Didact hasn't been elaborated upon, but it should be clear that the bio of the Didact should stay in this article, while Bornstellar's biography should end at the point where the Didact takes control, unless his original personality resurfaces at some point. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 14:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * A very interesting read. How far should this concept go, however? Smart AIs follow a similar argument - they are the conciousness and memories of a real person transferred into a computerised body. Cortana is a clone of Dr. Halsey, whereas Durga/Melissa is Yasmine Zaman - both are real, dead people (in Cortana's case, she is the computerised version of a dead clone of Halsey) who have been reincarnated into another body. However, should they be viewed as being that person, or just a replication? The same goes for the Didact - when in Bornstellar's body, is he the Didact, or just a replication of his conciousness. I suppose this is like the philosophical debate over the teleporters in Star Trek - the machines kill people, disassemble them, send them as a beam of energy to elsewhere and reconfigure a perfect copy. The debate, itself, relates to Theseus' paradox, where a ship's parts are replaced over time - when every part has been replaced, is it the same ship? And what happens if the original parts were used to replicate the ship - are there two ships that can be considered the real one?--  Fore  run  ner '' 14:44, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * As for the matter of AIs, I think the most important determining factor is the way the characters in question are regarded in-universe. Cortana and Dr. Halsey are clearly considered two separate individuals, and they indeed are - as Halsey's journal tells us, the human brain is only used to "seed" the nascent AI matrix, but the AI soon develops its own neural linkages, effectively becoming not only a different individual, but also an entity clearly distinct from a biological human being. Thus, even though the AI is based upon the pattern of its brain donor and usually shares certain traits as a result, it's not as straightforward as a direct conversion from a biological system to a digital one.


 * In the Didact's case, his personality was directly imprinted into another biological body. It's not the same Didact, but it's closer to the original person than an AI is to its brain donor. A different version of the Didact, if you will. I guess you could compare it to AIs being able to assign duplicates of themselves to work on certain tasks, though even this comparison is flawed due to the fundamentally different workings of AI minds. Again, the way the character is viewed in-universe should be a good reference point: since everyone considers "Didact V2" as the Didact, and he behaves exactly like the original Didact, then we should also consider him as merely another incarnation of the Didact, regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of his existence.


 * The issue of the continuity of consciousness is a complex one indeed; like you said, the transporters in ST are pretty problematic from an ethical standpoint. For the sake of convenience, the people who come through the transporter are still considered the same people who went in, even though they're just perfect copies of their former selves, who have been dead since the first time they used a transporter. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * But, the way that Bornstellar received the Didact's experiences is through a mutation or "imprint." So Bornstellar is still there, it's just that he has the Didact's experiences.  So it's not even that they are two separate consciousnesses, it's just that the Didact's experiences are far more useful than Bornstellar's, so Bornstellar has just "assumed the identity as the Didact."  We cannot say that Bornstellar's father is the Master Builder, because even though he has his experiences, they are different people.  What would we do if the Didact returned?  We wouldn't have a really jumbled up Didact page, would we?  Bornstellar received the Didact's imprint, and took the Didact's identity so people would listen to him and earn their respect.  (or so it says in the sacred caves) Icon-Vegito2.gif  Vegerot  ( talk ) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (EST)!


 * It has already been established that "imprints" are more than just experiences and knowledge. They're fully functioning minds existing alongside the consciousness of the individual who carries them. How else would the Bornstellar or Chakas be able to directly converse with their imprints? It's also been established that the imprints can assume direct control (har har) of their "hosts", as demonstrated when Chakas' and Riser's "old spirits" speak through them, or near the end of Cryptum where the Didact temporarily deactivates Mendicant Bias and later when he maneuvers the escape pod. In any of those cases, it's made clear that the carrier of the imprint definitely wasn't the one in control.


 * As for other Forerunners, I'm not saying that everyone who receives an imprint from someone automatically becomes that person. I'm referring to this specific instance, where the Didact's imprint subverted the original consciousness inhabiting the body. Bornstellar didn't become the Didact the moment the mutation occurred. He was still himself until he met the Librarian on the Ark.


 * To back this up with some material from the books, in the final pages of Cryptum, the "new Didact" refers to the experiences of the original Didact as if they were his; "my revival on Erde-Tyrene", "I would prepare once again the defense I had championed a thousand years ago". If he was merely Bornstellar drawing from the Didact's experiences, he would not refer to the Didact in the first person. Later, in Primordium (p348), when Chakas recognizes him as Bornstellar, the Didact answers; "No more, except in my dreams." Perhaps the most obvious confirmation of this is Bornstellar's statement in Cryptum (p318): "I was then two beings confined in one body."


 * I admit something like this is more complex than dealing with normal people existing in one body. However, with tech which allows one to body-hop like this, we have to view it from a different perspective than we normally would. When both the Didact's consciousness and identity lived on in another body, should the body matter more than the mind? If the original Didact returned, which seems unlikely at this point, then we'll just have to judge the matter based on the new information. Too early to do anything of the sort right now. As of now, having a section called "reincarnation" on this page should be enough to make it clear that it's not the same Didact, but a copy of his mind that lives on. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 00:38, 30 January 2012 (EST)

So then in that case should we combine the 343 Guilty Spark and the Chakas articles? And yes, I got that Mass Effect pun :D while we're on the topic of comedy, what do you think of my new sig? (or so it says in the sacred caves)  Vegerot  ( talk ) 08:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)!
 * On the topic of your sig, I just don't see why you need the whole "(insert text here)".— subtank  12:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)


 * I absolutely think we should keep the 343GS and Chakas articles separate, for reasons which I've already touched upon a couple of posts earlier. The most apparent reason being that 343 Guilty Spark and Chakas are still considered two distinct entities. Chakas became another thing entirely, while his former self ceased to exist. Even though the monitor evidently retained some semblance of Chakas' consciousness, his entire existence changed in a fundamental way, from a very limited human mind to a machine intelligence with exponentially larger processing capabilities.


 * This particular case is not at all dissimilar to the issue of human smart AI creation. For example, even though Cortana is directly based on the neural pattern of Dr. Halsey, the two aren't the same person, not only because Cortana has a different identity (although that is a major contibuting factor), but also because an AI mind is so different from a human one. The same isn't true with the Didact's "reincarnation"; he still retains his former identity and status; the only thing that has changed is his body. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 14:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)


 * Here's a quote from Greg Bear's discussion board under the heading "The Forerunner Saga", originally dated 05/16/12:
 * From: Greg Bear
 * Date: 05/22/2012


 * We're working on those connections. For now, let's just say there are two Didacts...


 * This was in response to a query as to whether the info in the Halo 3 terminals could be considered "canon"... DJenser 10:08, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * And now, TOR Books lends yet more credence to the possibility of there being 2 Didacts:
 * "Only the Ur-Didact and the Librarian —a husband and wife pushed into desperate conflict—hold the keys to salvation. Facing the consequences of a mythic tragedy, one of them must now commit the greatest atrocity of all time—to prevent an unmatched evil from dominating the entire universe."
 * The prefix "Ur-" is a German prefix designation which means "Previous", "Primordial" or "Original" DJenser 13:43, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
 * I was wondering what Ur meant. -- Killamint   Comm  14:34, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Wedding
It's not clear... When did the Didact and the Librarian meet themselves ? It's on Charum Hakkor, sure, but before the Forerunner/Human War ? It seems strange to me, the planet was already in human-controlled space. After, during the Charum Hakkor campaign ? Then, the Didact childs cannot die during the war. Any solution ? --81.53.5.52 07:10, 8 May 2012 (EDT)


 * It has to be before the war, since the Forerunners didn't even get near the planet until the end of the campaign. It's not exactly elaborated upon how the humans and Forerunners got along before the war, but Primordium states that Forerunners, even the Didact, had visited some ancient human worlds so it's not impossible that they might have also been to Charum Hakkor before the conflict broke out. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 04:52, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Didact in the Reclaimer Trilogy
Didact will appear in the Reclaimer Trilogy and, at some point, will be a playable character similarly to how the Arbiter was playable in Halo 2 and 3. In which game this happens isn't entirely known yet but it could be as early as Halo 4.
 * Spoiler? You know a source would be nice.--Gravemind.svg  Col. Spartacus  <font color="Black">Talk Page <font color="Black">Contributions  16:39, 9 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Unless you have a source, this is speculation and/or made-up. Highly doubt he'll be a playable character, especially in Halo 4 given we're only controlling Master Chief & Spartan 4's. Also we're not 100% sure he's in Halo 4 to begin with (despite his symbol popping up). -- Killamint   KillaEX  11:13, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Halo 4 Demo Quote
In the recent Halo 4 Demo, someone at the end states "I have long waited for this day Reclaimer"

I have a reason to believe it is not the Didact.

1. The symbol is different. The CEA Terminals made it very clear what the symbol looked like from 343i, this one is different.

Firstly, it lacks the distinctive clear cut hexagonal pattern. The bottom lower bit is different, too.

Secondly, the symbol turns. That must mean something.

Thirdly, to my knowledge there is no evidence or source that actually proves that he stated it, please educate me.

2. The symbol flipping is the sign of something gone rampant, or the opposite/opposer to something.

For example, take the supposed anti-Christ. Similarly, the symbol could represent the anti-Didact, or even the Master Builder Faber, whom we have no knowledge of insignia.

3. The Didact is not evil. As leader of the Forerunner military, he tried to save as much life from the galaxy as he could while defeating the Flood. Sure he treated humanity badly but he was good intentioned as a whole and sought to seek answers for his earlier actions. He was also married to the Librarian, I would imagine that she is alive too refering Chakas's reveal at the end of Primordium; this would keep him calm.

SMNZ117 07:00, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
 * The symbol turning is for show only, it doesn't mean anything [to me at least]. Yes, we are not 100% sure the Didact will be in Halo 4, we're mostly going off a symbol in the trailer that highly resembles his. To me it looks like the Didact's symbol with no differences. Also we haven't got the last book in the Forerunner trilogy, which most likely will explain the Didact's (or other antagonist's) supposed appearance in Halo 4. So for now it mostly conjecture but based off a source- his symbol. -- Killamint   KillaEX  11:29, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I disagree with the assertion that the turning symbol is meaningless or simply for show, given the fact that it appears inverted throughout the video until the very end. That being said, I must also agree that we don't know enough about the story yet to simply assume that the Didact is the "Nemesis" in this upcoming trilogy. There are still too many variables and not enough facts to answer that question. What little info we do have (Forerunner tech designated as "Promethean" being used against the Chief, a disembodied voice, an inverted symbol that looks quite similar to the Didact's, oh, and this...) only serves to lead us in the direction of a particular conclusion, but it doesn't actually answer the question. I highly doubt 343'd put all of their cards on the table like that. DJenser 12:17, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Now there are two Didacts? You mentioned it in the Bornstellar/Didact topic but I missed it. If thats the case, he is in the game, quite possibly in some other form/variation of him. After looking closely at the symbol, you may be right, it does look different and is inverted, but lets put it this way. The good Didacts symbol is blue, while this new bad one is orange. Thats my only conclusion if Greg said their are two Didacts. Just have to wait till Halo 4 and Silentium come out for an explanation. Too much speculation with little source. -- Killamint   KillaEX  12:41, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * That's a pretty good point, Killamint. They made duplicates of 343GS, right? Is it possible that they cloned the Didact to increase the Forerunner military efficiency? — S331 Bubbleshieldhud.svg(COM • Mission Log • Profile) 13:22, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * (edit conflict) Two Didacts, huh? I noticed in the E3 trailer that there was a glimpse of Prometheans with the more traditional gray and blue coloration of the Forerunners. Perhaps this means that there are two factions of Forerunners on Requiem, each controlled by different Didacts. Personally, I suspect Faber of having something to do with it since it's only "assumed" he died but we'll have to wait and see.--Kamikaz 13:33, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I have a sneaking suspicion that since most Forerunner lights are light blue, and these are all orange, along with the reversed symbol, something's not right with them. Probably under the command of this "other" Didact, who's possibly evil, or maybe is rampant. Something like that. Alex T Snow 16:27, 15 June 2012 (EDT)


 * All of these are valid theories... Which serves to prove my point that there are still too many variables at this extremely early point in the game. For all we know, Greg may be referring to an internal conflict in which the Didact's personality matrix is having difficulty integrating with Born's causing a "split personality" type disorder which drove him crazy. Or, it could literally mean that the original survived & there were 2 Didacts before one of them lit the array & removed themself from the equation, leaving the more bitter, aggressive, wrathful version to wreak his vengeance upon an unsuspecting galaxy in retaliation for losing everything he once held dear... A case could be made for either scenario... If you look at Terminal 7 from H3, it looks to me like that message that was sent to the writer's father could have been written by Bornstellar... I don't recognize the symbol, but it looks somewhat similar in design to the Didact's & Librarian's except that it has a smaller hexagon ON TOP OF the larger central one. The red Didact symbol has the vertical line on top of the central hexagon... Or I could just be talking smack... Again, too soon to tell...DJenser 17:04, 15 June 2012 (EDT)