Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 13:40:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <101cu21$k77f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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$6@dont-email.me>
 <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me> <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cis6$hv12$1@dont-email.me> <101cjjo$hqle$2@dont-email.me>
 <101cmga$imoa$1@dont-email.me> <101cohp$ikgf$4@dont-email.me>
 <101cppa$j97s$1@dont-email.me> <101cqs1$j925$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cst5$ikgf$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 20:40:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73dc11aa65be162e0b0150944dd1d14a";
	logging-data="662767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tm3T/ntaLYhSUckfUIZcp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JvVgt7OyD3lQhAdhW6i+WqeI0Tk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101cst5$ikgf$5@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250530-6, 5/30/2025), Outbound message

On 5/30/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 18:45, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/30/2025 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> There aren't many ways to invalidate a proof. Demonstrating that the 
>>>> conclusion is false is insufficient (because you now have two 
>>>> proofs, each of which claims that 'I'm right so you're wrong'); one 
>>>> must attack the reasoning or the assumptions (or both) and show how 
>>>> a flawed step or a flawed assumption invalidates the method (and 
>>>> perhaps the conclusion).
>>>>
>>>> As it happens, Olcott accepts anyway that Turing's conclusion is 
>>>> correct, so his only beef can be with an assumption or a step.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Turing's conclusion *is correct within a false assumption*
>>
>> Specifically, the assumption that the following requirements can be met:
>>
>>
>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) 
>> X described as <X> with input Y:
>>
>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
>> following mapping:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>> directly
> 
> Yes, that is precisely the assumption Turing makes, and he makes it 
> explicitly, and he makes it with the express intent of showing that it 
> cannot be true.
> 
>>> YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO ALL THE WORDS THAT I SAY.
> 
> Noise on the line again, I see. I must call the broadband people.
> 
>>>
>>>> Turing's only assumption is overturned by reductio within the proof 
>>>> itself, so that can't be it... which only leaves steps.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can recall, Olcott's ramblings never go within discus- 
>>>> throwing distance of a potentially erroneous step.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no *INPUT* D to termination analyzer H
>>> that can possibly do the opposite of whatever
>>> value that H returns.
>>
>> False. "DDD" is a description/specification of algorithm DDD 
>> consisting of the fixed code of the function DDD, the fixed code 
>> function HHH, and the fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to 
>> the OS level.
> 
> HHH is not the computation Turing assumed could exist (for the sole 
> purpose of showing that it could not). HHH is a hodgepodge of shit C and 
> what looks like more line noise in assembly mnemonics. It is not a 
> universal computation such as Turing envisaged:
> 
> +++++
> Let us suppose that there is such a process; that is to say, that we can 
> invent a machine <D- which, when supplied with the S.D of any computing 
> machine i l will test this S.D and if i l is circular will mark the S.D 
> with the symbol "u" and if it is circle-free will mark it with " s ".
> +++++
> 
> By "the S.D. of any computing machine" he means the 'standard 
> description' of >>>>any<<<< Turing machine.
> 
> HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing whatsoever on the 
> Turing proof.
> 

It is a verified fact that the
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*

to HHH(DDD)
does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.

The only rebuttal to that uses the despicably dishonest
strawman error by ignoring the word
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*





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