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 11:24:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <10271sq$ki5i$2@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <1026vqt$kb6a$1@dont-email.me> <102703a$kcea$1@dont-email.me>
 <10270q6$ki5i$1@dont-email.me> <102715d$ipgg$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:24:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a";
	logging-data="673970"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UPcSpS/NJHL+/stktpabm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4yb8zCWzeF4WuiHikR0KeW0lCMw=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-2, 6/9/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <102715d$ipgg$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 10:54 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Replying with something other than "yes" or "no" to a yes or no 
>>> question is not an answer.
>>>
>>
>> By replying to a yes or no question with the full
>> and complete justification forces the respondent
>> to look more deeply into these things than simply
>> dismissing a view out-of-hand without review.
> 
> But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the question.
> 

Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my
reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning
I prove who is the actual ignorant one.

Even the most stupid bot that ever existed "Eliza" could
baselessly disagree. When I insist that rebuttals must
have an actual basis the cluelessness of mere trolls is
made obvious.

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