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 11:25:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <101faha$173bb$10@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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$1@dont-email.me> <101cj00$hfof$4@dont-email.me>
 <101emrl$12rnb$1@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 18:25:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193";
	logging-data="1281387"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18D3MBRj2c11NzmctK7OYpF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nRw38HC1bJkTrnfWREfkCz2ch4E=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-2, 5/31/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <101emrl$12rnb$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/31/2025 5:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 30.mei.2025 om 17:31 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/29/2025 1:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2025 19:14, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
>>>>>>>>> problem proof is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when 
>>>>>>>> you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the 
>>>>>>>> proof proves is correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, which 
>>>>>>> might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd have to be 
>>>>>>> able to explain why he's right, which of course he can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]
>>>>>
>>>>> And it seems you still can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies is 
>>>>> always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your proof.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.
>>>
>>> Maybe you think that asserting something is true is sufficient to 
>>> make it true. It isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.
>>>
>>> Maybe you think that asserting something is self-evidently true is 
>>> sufficient to make it self-evidently true. It isn't.
>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>> It is a tautology that any input D to termination
>>>> analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
>>>
>>> But in making that claim you assume that you correctly know the 
>>> termination behaviour of D.
>>>
>>
>> We only know this:
>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>> and that is enough.
>>
> Talking about dishonesty. It is simply not true that simulated D would 
> never stop running unless aborted. It suggests that the input given to H 
> specifies a non-halting program. But it doesn't. The input includes D. 
> D, in turn, has addresses of other functions, including the functions 
> that abort and halt. 

In other words you don't understand what "never aborted" means.

> So, the input specifies a halting program.
> World-class simulators show that no abort is needed. The simulation of 
> the program specified with this input has a natural end.


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