Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:52:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <1012d9j$24dfd$4@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me> <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me> <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me> <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me> <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me> <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me>
 <9af78257f75aa43a76d4b75e226bf92aeaf62463@i2pn2.org>
 <100ngbr$3hg1k$1@dont-email.me> <100p7gf$3voas$2@dont-email.me>
 <100q8cq$5buc$8@dont-email.me>
 <6bd30be886d32bf94f526d777e8ee5a9231cd43d@i2pn2.org>
 <100qlhs$8jis$1@dont-email.me> <100qn3h$7shk$3@dont-email.me>
 <100qo0e$918i$1@dont-email.me> <100qrgo$9mjb$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qrlu$9o8b$1@dont-email.me> <100subv$157b$1@news.muc.de>
 <100sus7$qr00$1@dont-email.me> <100urn4$1b16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <100v9le$1d5lg$6@dont-email.me> <1011dqb$1uo7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <101241p$22da5$12@dont-email.me> <1012bbi$24dfe$6@dont-email.me>
 <1012bvs$24p17$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:52:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d9741af3eeecd00f2e2fba301162a94";
	logging-data="2242029"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M3FivCWJYYAAeyZGY7ubE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HkPbeh0ct5SMAYWNAFZFtRRj0x0=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1012bvs$24p17$1@dont-email.me>

Op 26.mei.2025 om 20:30 schreef olcott:
> On 5/26/2025 1:19 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 18:14 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/26/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-25 14:32:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/25/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-24 17:15:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/24/2025 12:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/05/2025 22:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 3:50 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/05/2025 21:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An unequivocal response, but it lacks persuasive power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide the exact detailed steps of exactly how
>>>>>>>>>>> people can show that I am wrong and they refuse to
>>>>>>>>>>> show that I am wrong yet claim that I am wrong this
>>>>>>>>>>> is the kind of reckless disregard for the truth that
>>>>>>>>>>> loses defamation cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When your opponents point to the Turing proof that proves 
>>>>>>>>>> you're wrong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Without going through all of the detailed steps
>>>>>>>>> that I present that is a reckless disregard for
>>>>>>>>> the truth that loses defamation cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There you are utterly wrong.  The Halting Theorem has been 
>>>>>>>> proven, thus
>>>>>>>> is true.  Anybody putting up a contrary argument must therefore 
>>>>>>>> be wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might also put up a long winded argument why 2 + 2 = 5, and 
>>>>>>>> I would
>>>>>>>> dismiss this likewise, without bothering to follow your exact 
>>>>>>>> detailed
>>>>>>>> steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've also tried, without success, to dismiss one of the proofs 
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> Halting Therem as invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And would be successful if people actually paid
>>>>>>> attention to what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People are successfull in pointing out errors in what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> When they point out errors it is always of this form:
>>>>> "that is not the way that I memorized it".
>>>>
>>>> If you were not lying you could point at least one pointer to a such
>>>> message. But you can't.
>>>>
>>>>> They never ever show any actual errors in my reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> They do. For eample:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:07:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/05/2025 22:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When your opponents point to the Turing proof that proves you're 
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>
>>>>>> Without going through all of the detailed steps that I present 
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> a reckless disregard for the truth that loses defamation cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> There you are utterly wrong.  The Halting Theorem has been proven, 
>>>>> thus
>>>>> is true.  Anybody putting up a contrary argument must therefore be
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> That shows an actual error in your reasoning. You can't show any actual
>>>> error in Alan Mackenzie'sreasoning above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>>> The key mistake of the conventional halting problem proofs
>>> is that they do not require the halt decider to report on
>>> the actual behavior actually specified by the input.
>>
>> They do. The input is a pointer to memory. This memory includes DDD 
>> and all functions called by it directly and in directly, including the 
>> code of Halt7.c, which specifies the abort, which makes that the input 
>> specifies a halting program.
>>
>>>
>>> When HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its finite string
>>> input to the behavior that it actually specifies, 
>>
>> namely, a program that aborts and halts,
>>
>>
>>> we see
>>> that the emulated DDD will continue to call HHH(DDD) in
>>
>> finite
>>
>>> recursive emulation 
>>
>> but unable to reach the emulated 'ret' instruction, because of a 
>> premature abort. So, its mapping is incorrect, because it does not 
>> find the behaviour that is actually specified. This bug makes that it is
>>
>>> never able to reach its own emulated
>>> "ret" instruction final halt state.
>>>
>>> The recursive emulation invariant is that the emulated
>>> DDD never reaches its own emulated "ret" instruction final
>>> halt state, 
>>
>> because it is aborted prematurely. This failure of HHH to reach the 
>> 'ret' instruction, does not change the specification in the input. It 
>> only shows that the programmer made a mistake when he coded the abort 
>> code.
>>
> 
> Counter-factual.
> DDD emulated by HHH1 calls HHH(DDD) and this call returns
> DDD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) and this call CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN

Because HHH fails to reach the end due to a premature abort.
Exactly the same input was specified to HHH1 and HHH, but only HHH1 was 
correct and HHH fails to reach the end.

> 
> Everyone that tries to rebut what I said has hidden
> false assumptions that could be show if they provide
> 100% of all of the details of their reasoning.
> 

Every competent person sees that this is not counter factual, because 
everyone is able to verify the facts.
But because of your dreams, you use the wrong assumptions, that are 
counter-factual, as explained. But you stay in rebuttal mode and repeat 
your claims, proving that you do not understand the facts.