Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:13:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:13:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3e479354f6c59f79625e93d556f5bfb"; logging-data="3341652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Fy0padbyluVQ/9Wp+dAcj" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mMTYMssu9oHjaKbuLF8j1l/vjqo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4380 On 6/21/2024 3:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 20.jun.2024 om 18:28 schreef olcott: >> On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>> >>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>> >>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people >>>> that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace >>>> through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding >>>> none. >> >>> You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature. >>> We found many errors. >>> >> >> All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere >> dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is >> inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks. >> >> The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly >> disagree with verified facts. >> > > No one ever verified these facts. We know that in your language > 'verified facts' means 'my wishes'. On 6/20/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> It also looks like you fail to comprehend that it is possible >> for a simulating termination analyzer to recognize inputs that >> would never terminate by recognizing the repeating state of >> these inputs after a finite number of steps of correct simulation. > > Right, but they don't do it by "Correctly Simulating" the > input, but by a PARTIAL simulation that provides the needed > information to prove that an ACTUAL CORRECT (and complete) > simulation of that input would not halt. > > Many errors were pointed out to you, but you prefer to ignore them, > probably because your prejudice has already made up your mind that they > must be wrong, so you did not bother to think about them. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer