Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:50:47 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <101ejdn$1278k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4> <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$1@dont-email.me> <101cv9m$j925$3@dont-email.me> <101cvh3$kh09$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 11:50:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bd1cfc1e45b4e90432c7d9e9043b3f3e";
	logging-data="1121556"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+m1jti5LUb5zDxsQTUyPFR"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xV9UYnfH7ckTF1Lcblhu/d6vxNM=

On 2025-05-30 19:05:07 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/30/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I never changed the input you freaking moron.

You did change the meaning of he input.

-- 
Mikko