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: Sat, 31 May 2025 11:36:13 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <101f7lb$173m3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <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> <101f7gm$173bb$4@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 17:36:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1adda083d038348e190ff3433969ba4";
	logging-data="1281731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QjbCrMP3fuRz8NGi/QyzF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ffV8fwiFekrGwlnB4OQkFDwjby4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101f7gm$173bb$4@dont-email.me>

On 5/31/2025 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

It is when one of those ideas is changing function HHH, as the input is 
the fixed code of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, 
and the fixed code of everything that function HHH calls down to the OS 
level.