Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 15:01:11 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <101cv9m$j925$3@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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$2@dont-email.me> <101cv7m$kh09$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="556f688ada1f57db8ff8bf19eae5e69a";
	logging-data="631877"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188ewjFNkTxNojHfCVYs22p"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pY7ygkAzLr9QB3VTxzXb4hKS7xI=
In-Reply-To: <101cv7m$kh09$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/30/2025 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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

In other words, if you change the input so that HHH doesn't abort.

Changing the input is not allowed.