Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 12:53:52 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <1001so0$2f8st$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvudut$1ife1$1@dont-email.me> <vvuii0$1j0qo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuk0d$1j6s0$5@dont-email.me> <vvvbtd$1ov7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvvpia$1tcfq$1@dont-email.me> <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvvrjg$1tgam$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 12:53:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e567ff0a1649ffdcfab1f6a8ac077c5a";
	logging-data="2597789"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JacCHXSzEalBoM0EM+uX+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DvN9Utt+XAftlz/gVj/1FeOzutY=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vvvrjg$1tgam$2@dont-email.me>

Op 13.mei.2025 om 18:22 schreef olcott:
> On 5/13/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so.  It 
>>>>>>> seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is 
>>>>>>> saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO 
>>>>>>> and responders...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I have 
>>>>>> occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would be well 
>>>>>> advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the game go) 
>>>>>> which prohibits one from returning to the exact same position. 
>>>>>> Simply repeating the same objection after olcott has ignored it is 
>>>>>> pointless. If he didn't get the objection the fiftieth time he's 
>>>>>> not going to get it the fifty-first time either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum 
>>>>>> would be considerably shorter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If people would actually address rather than
>>>>> dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
>>>>> they would see that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his 
>>>> dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses and 
>>>> refuted many times already.
>>>
>>> We might call that a disturbing ko.
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>
>> The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
>> on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
>> instead of the actual behavior that the finite
>> string of DD specifies:
>>
>> *DD emulated by HHH according to*
>> *the rules of the x86 language*
>>
>> has never been explained. The closest thing to
>> reasoning that was provided on this point is
>> "that is what textbooks say".
>>
> 
> ZFC reformulated set theory correcting its error
> and the original set theory is now called naive
> set theory.
> 
> When we understand that a termination analyzer
> must compute the mapping from its input to the
> behavior that this input actually specifies
> then all of the conventional halting problem
> proof fail.
> 
> How does it make sense to require a termination
> analyzer to report on behavior that is not the
> actual behavior that the input specifies?

The input specifies a halting program, as proven when exactly the same 
input is used for direct execution and in other simulators.
That the programmer of HHH made HHH blind for this part of the 
specification, does not mean that it is not specified. It is just a bug 
in HHH which skips that part of the specification by aborting too soon.

> 
> Mike seems to have indicated that this has
> been explained in full and I simply ignored
> the explanation.
>