Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 10:49:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <1026vqt$kb6a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me>
 <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026i2q$h686$1@dont-email.me>
 <1026slo$j3rp$6@dont-email.me> <1026ta5$ipgg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1026ukn$k2tr$1@dont-email.me> <1026uuj$ipgg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 17:49:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a";
	logging-data="666826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LcRqqwice4XsOSoXmh0y8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5Gr2+pYU3hOu3Q9j/AHZIVCAVAU=
In-Reply-To: <1026uuj$ipgg$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-2, 6/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/9/2025 10:34 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:55 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work 
>>>>>>>>>>> with algorithms,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you think that shows that 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours.
>>>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which is what is meant in this context. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ 
>>>>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not 
>>>>>>> working on the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which you stated only includes the instructions of the function DDD 
>>>>> on multiple occasions (see below),
>>>>
>>>> It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
>>>> my reply that you erased.
>>>>
>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you admit that that finite string includes the machine code of 
>>> the function DDD, the machine code of the function HHH, and the 
>>> machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, and 
>>> that address 000015c3 is part of DDD?
>>
>> I admit that:
>> (a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH,
>> (b) the directly executed DDD() and
>> (c) the directly executed HHH()
>> WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS
>> HHH ABORTS ITS SIMULATION OF DDD.
>>
>> Because this is true it derives conclusive proof
>> that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting
>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> That people here disagree with self-evident truth
>> seems to indicate that people here are liars.
>>
>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>> proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
>> by understanding its meaning without proof...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>
>>
> 
> 
> In other words, a non-answer.  I'll take that as a no.
> 
> And since your HHH doesn't work with algorithms (or their description / 
> specification) as you've admitted, you're not working on the halting 
> problem.
> 

You are far too sloppy in your interpretation of the
meaning of words. Also when I do provide an answer
you simply ignore it.

The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence
of configurations.

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