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: Sat, 31 May 2025 10:33:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <101f7gm$173bb$4@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <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>
 <101ejdn$1278k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 17:33:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193";
	logging-data="1281387"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SlxNqBeVt2Kyu2XAAt+xK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t3mcLt8SwxO4q2liglQIuQwd9UQ=
In-Reply-To: <101ejdn$1278k$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-2, 5/31/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/31/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Examining a set of ideas within one's own mind
IS NOT CHANGING THE INPUT.

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