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 14:00:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <101cv7m$kh09$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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$5@dont-email.me> <101cu21$k77f$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cuid$j925$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:00:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73dc11aa65be162e0b0150944dd1d14a";
	logging-data="672777"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QH4CsVLOjN/TsmOIk2m2Z"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5b1+CIPZKK5CVcky7ia+A2G7fvQ=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <101cuid$j925$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250530-6, 5/30/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/30/2025 1:48 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/30/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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)
> 
> 
> i.e. a description of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed code of the 
> function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, and the fixed code of 
> everything that HHH calls down to the OS level.
> 

Never stops running unless HHH aborts its emulation
of DDD thus proving that the input to HHH(DDD) does
specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.

DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT 500 TIMES BEFORE YOU NOTICE THAT
I SAID IT AT LEAST ONCE?


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