Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 19:40:57 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me>
 <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org>
 <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <ewIZP.135645$vK4b.131815@fx09.ams4>
 <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me> <1017tr1$3drlu$5@dont-email.me>
 <1017ufm$3e54m$6@dont-email.me> <1019vm1$3u8nj$3@dont-email.me>
 <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me> <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 20:40:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b460fc7b74503cbb8966d520c678c9ad";
	logging-data="17063"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Tzkvhjlh7W21n3Xl2LOBG8xSM90HxeUIAHyYzvqbyiA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S6zCQ45iKja5twSpL769BV6MlpY=
In-Reply-To: <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 29/05/2025 19:14, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
>>>>>> problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong 
>>>>> when you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that 
>>>>> what the proof proves is correct?
>>>>
>>>> It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, 
>>>> which might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd 
>>>> have to be able to explain why he's right, which of course he 
>>>> can't.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>> See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]
>>
>> And it seems you still can't.
>>
>> I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies 
>> is always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your 
>> proof.
> 
> Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.

Maybe you think that asserting something is true is sufficient to 
make it true. It isn't.


> Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.

Maybe you think that asserting something is self-evidently true 
is sufficient to make it self-evidently true. It isn't.

> <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
> 
> It is a tautology that any input D to termination
> analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.

But in making that claim you assume that you correctly know the 
termination behaviour of D.

I can easily sketch out a program that your HHH analyser would 
impatiently abort as non-terminating, but which could conceivably 
stop running this year, next year, sometime... or never.


-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within