Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not
 paying attention
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:33:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <08606604207a9133fec84317c0cc04469711b4ce@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9oerj$1iiu2$1@dont-email.me>
 <3rKcnXwB7eKxUF37nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9qj19$1tedb$16@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:33:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9qj19$1tedb$16@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 13318
Lines: 213

On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 2:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>         <BIG SNIP>
>>>>> It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is 
>>>>> very short of memory.)
>>>>> I never said such a thing.
>>>>> I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the 
>>>>> simulated HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the 
>>>>> simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
>>>>> In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach 
>>>>> the abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation 
>>>>> is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as 
>>>>> by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, 
>>>>> or your memory is indeed very short.
>>>>> Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from 
>>>>> rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.
>>>>
>>>> That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really 
>>>> doesn't "understand" /anything/ with an abstract / logical / 
>>>> mathematical content.  He can't understand definitions or their role 
>>>> in proofs, or the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not 
>>>> kidding or being rude or anything like that - it's simply the way 
>>>> his brain works.  *Of course* PO does not "really read what you 
>>>> write". Surely you must have at least suspected this for a long 
>>>> time?!  [I don't notice any problem with PO's memory.]
>>>>
>>>> For PO it's all just "things he thinks are true", aka his 
>>>> intuitions. Those will not change as a result of any reasoning 
>>>> presented to him, because, literally, PO does not register any 
>>>> reasoning going on. It's impossible to fully imagine "what it's like 
>>>> to be PO", just like a seeing person can't /truly/ imagine how say a 
>>>> blind person or schizophrenic perceives the world - but as a 
>>>> starter, imagine you're hearing a foreign language and don't 
>>>> understand the words being used. OK, you recognise the odd word 
>>>> through repetition, and over time you've formed your own (incomplete 
>>>> and often incorrect) opinions of "what the words are to do with", 
>>>> but that's all.  You convince yourself you understand "what the 
>>>> words actually mean" but that's a delusion!  When people reply to 
>>>> what you say, you don't "understand" what they're really saying.  
>>>> ok, you recognise some of the keywords, and can tell from the tone 
>>>> of the reply whether they are agreeing or disagreeing with you, but 
>>>> that's about it!  You recognise some of the common objections people 
>>>> bring up, and over time you've developed stock phrases to repeat 
>>>> back to them, but there's no "logic" involved.  You don't think all 
>>>> this is strange, because it's always been this way for you.  You 
>>>> don't even realise it's different for everybody else...
>>>>
>>>> The analogy isn't perfect, because as a foreigner you would still be 
>>>> fully capable of reasoning, and you would realise that you don't 
>>>> understand key points and so on.  Instead of a lack of language 
>>>> understanding, the analogy should use a "lack of reasoning ability" 
>>>> theme or something equally fundamental, but that's not a common 
>>>> situation people can appreciate - practically /everybody/ in our 
>>>> lives that we interact with has an ability to reason correctly, 
>>>> understand definitions, understand what people are saying to them 
>>>> and what their beliefs are etc..  But PO is really not like all 
>>>> those normal people!
>>>>
>>>> If you expect to suddenly convince PO he is wrong, that won't 
>>>> happen. How to dispell a false intuition without using reasoning?  
>>>> If you expect to prove that PO is wrong, hey that's easy enough, but 
>>>> not really needed!  Nobody with any understanding of HP problem is 
>>>> taken in by PO's duffer speak.  Eventually most posters just get 
>>>> bored repeating the same explanations to him over and over, and umm 
>>>> stop doing it.  [It can take years to get tothat point...]
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a case could be made that continually demanding PO "proves" 
>>>> his claims is a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" as everybody 
>>>> here by now must appreciate that's far beyond his intellectual 
>>>> capabilities.  Or as a worst case, perhaps it might be compared with 
>>>> "taunting" a mentally handicapped (or at least mentally ill) person, 
>>>> which is obviously not nice at all.  But PO will not recognise that 
>>>> he is in that position, and the "taunters" only suspect, rather than 
>>>> truly believe, that this is in fact the scenario.  So no harm done 
>>>> perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> I think other posters here must wonder about this from time to time, 
>>>> but the thought makes them uncomfortable - if PO really /can't/ 
>>>> reason like normal people, then what would be the /point/ in 
>>>> constantly arguing [note: arguing, not debating/discussing] all this 
>>>> with him over and over and over?  This brings into question their 
>>>> own behaviour...  Easier perhaps to fall back on lazy thinking and 
>>>> just call him a liar, lazy, willfully ignorant and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the kindest approach would just be to let him get on with 
>>>> it? For PO, I feel he has abandoned his life plan of publishing his 
>>>> claims in a peer reviewed journal.  Instead I think he has settled 
>>>> for maintaining/reinforcing his delusions of geniushood for whatever 
>>>> time remains in his life.
>>>>
>>>> I know some will not like this approach - PO is not a nice person; 
>>>> he is arrogant, self deluded, and insults posters to say nothing of 
>>>> those such as Turing/Godel/Tarski who have spent their lives 
>>>> thinking deeply about things and carefully developing their ideas.  
>>>> It may seem Wrong that PO could live his life casually insulting 
>>>> such people, and then die without getting any come-uppance; it's 
>>>> just ... not ... fair !!!  :)
>>>>
>>>> I understand that, but suggest that none of that really matters. 
>>>> People cannot change PO into something that he isn't.  When he dies, 
>>>> his mistakes will be quickly forgotten and the world will just 
>>>> carries on. No harm done...
>>> I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I think 
>>> there is another ingredient mixed into PO that should not be 
>>> overlooked: he is extraordinarily lonesome. He is not a nice person, 
>>> as you have observed, and the way his mind works precludes rational 
>>> and/or friendly conversation. So he has no friends and he both wants 
>>> human contact (even electronically - how modern) and to pay back 
>>> those who shun him and treat him as the mental defective that he 
>>> probably is.
>>>
>>> So this is his social life; all of it. It is also the torture chamber 
>>> and in his mind he's the dungeon master. His method of torturing all 
>>> others is never providing positive feedback to those who want to help 
>>> improve him. Besides himself, most of the other long term 
>>> participants in these forums think of themselves as white nights. And 
>>> they are thwarted at every turn and that makes them try harder so PO 
>>> wins every encounter in the end.
>>
>> Yes, PO must have a pretty solitary life with little real social contact.
>>
>> You're right about the "white night" thing.  Initially it's reasonable 
>> that people encountering PO think they can help him simply by 
>> explaining his mistakes.  That was my first thought too.  But over 
>> time most people come to realise their continued involvement wrt PO 
>> achieves nothing useful whatsoever.  That's not to say there are /no/ 
>> good reasons for continued involvement.  A case in point would be 
>> Richard, who has said he is of an age where he believes continually 
>> correcting PO's errors is a way of keeping his mind active, and I 
>> don't think he expects anything he is doing will "help" PO, or even 
>> help other readers.
>>
>> For some time at the beginning I continued because I was curious about 
>> the details of what PO had coded (his x86utm program), and I just 
>> enjoy mucking about with different code hence my curiosity. Also I 
>> have the white night syndrome I guess - but no illusions that I can 
>> help PO. Most of my early days on Usenet were spent on groups like 
>> alt.math.undergrad, where posters were typically students who were 
>> motivated to learn and so listened to what the regulars had to say. 
>> Compare that to sci.math which has almost no students, and instead has 
>> dozens of cranks whose aim is definitely /not/ to learn anything!
>>
>> If I post here these days it is generally for the possible benefit of 
>> others conversing with PO - e.g. perhaps it seems to me that weeks of 
>> time are being wasted /through some simple miscommunication/ with PO. 
>> I've been around longer than the current (relative) newcommers [not as 
>> long as you and Ben I think], so I have more context for what PO is 
>> trying to say, 
> 
> *Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*


Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are 
just too stupid.

> 
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========