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 12:52:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <10273h4$ipgg$6@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:52:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gPRjhZUJ9pNH6Q0EYaVe+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YgZsLfU29cGlJ+0bJwIk6O/u6F0=
In-Reply-To: <10272o6$kt3u$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

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:
>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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)
> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
> 
> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
> 

Repeat of original point, previously refuted (see below)

This constitutes your admission that every counterpoint made since then 
is *correct*, including but not limited to:

* The input to HHH(DDD) consists of only the code of the function DDD
* Halt deciders / termination analyzers accept as input the description 
/ specification of an algorithm
* You're not actually working on the halting problem as your HHH doesn't 
work with the above
* You dishonestly dodge direct yes or no questions



On 6/8/2025 11:08 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, but you HHH does not by your own admission: