Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:14:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <1003pn8$2ul9e$5@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>
 <bfcd5b061ef0f74d9e711c1cefef0a8c44ac147b@i2pn2.org>
 <1002cmm$2i4bk$9@dont-email.me>
 <e21db6773cc8fc439910310c54eccdd8c99c7a1c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 06:14:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66a8f7019eb14522c3a913b396c0eecb";
	logging-data="3101998"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DmgEaZqXAVJUcQBXXkVU+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jqkjr0hDRhKR1EJYyvdAPdQYQdM=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <e21db6773cc8fc439910310c54eccdd8c99c7a1c@i2pn2.org>

On 5/14/2025 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/25 12:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But since that behavior is *DEFINED* to be the behavior of the 
>>> program represented when run, it is your PROOF that fails, because it 
>>> uses a strawman.
>>>
>>
>> In other words ZFC is completely wrong because it did
>> not address the Russell's Paradox *that was defined in*
>> naive set theory.
>>
> 
> No, it dealt with Russell's Paradox by creating a brand new Set Theory 
> that wasn't suseptable to it.
> 
> ZFC didn't "fix" Naive Set Theory, as you can't do that, and still be in 
> it. They created an alternative, that did what people needed, so they 
> used it.
> 

ZFC replaced the erroneous naive set theory.

> You are welcome to try and create your POOPS that isn't susseptable to 
> the "problem" of non-computable Functions, but you need to actually 
> define you system, and it doesn't change the fact that in Classical 
> Comoputation Theory, there are non-computable functions (like Halting).
> 
> Of course, it is certain that your computation system will be a lot less 
> powerful, as that is what is needed to be done to get around the "problem".

The spec sufficiently defines it.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer