Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@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 12:43:57 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <102730d$ipgg$5@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$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$3@dont-email.me>
 <10271sq$ki5i$2@dont-email.me> <10272c7$ipgg$4@dont-email.me>
 <10272o6$kt3u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:43:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18i10BGBapdIOERQtclLnbC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:62YLgJDpiYbQ2EwQsOTU3EzqFGI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10272o6$kt3u$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 11:33 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:
>> And since your reasoning is that the input to HHH(DDD) only includes 
>> the code of the function DDD as you've stated below,
> 
> *In other words you are too stupid to understand this*
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)

Only includes the code of the function DDD, as you have admitted on the 
record, meaning your HHH isn't working with algorithms (or their 
description/specification) and therefore has nothing to do with the 
halting problem.

If you would just be honest about that you might actually be taken 
seriously.


On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
 >>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original
 >>>>>>> was given.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.
 >>>
 >>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite
 >>> string HHH
 >>>
 >>
 >> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion.
 >>
 >
 > Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and therefore
 > has nothing to do with the halting problem.
 >

On 6/7/2025 10:56 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
 >>>> the machine address of 00002183.
 >>>>
 >>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
 >>>> the machine address of 00002190.
 >>>
 >>> False.
 >>>
 >>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 emulates is at the
 >>> machine address of 000015c3,
 >>
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >
 > In other words, you're not operating on algorithms.  And since the
 > halting problem is about algorithms, what you're working on has nothing
 > to do with the halting problem.
 >
 > If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on
 > the halting problem, people would stop bothering you.