Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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 13:20:17 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <102754h$ipgg$8@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$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$1@dont-email.me> <10273h4$ipgg$6@dont-email.me>
 <102745p$lajf$1@dont-email.me> <10274cs$ipgg$7@dont-email.me>
 <10274ln$ldq3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:20:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/v5ep/VR16KcQw1Y1bpv8Q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TSr3bw8hIwjkgxKZE/hCvkiwbXw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10274ln$ldq3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5006

On 6/9/2025 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 12:07 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you disagree with the above you are disagreeing
>>> with a self-evident truth.
>>>
>>
>> I see you made no attempt to refute what I said, confirming your 
>> agreement.
>>
> 
> Not at all. I will not tolerate any scatter-brained
> attempt at changing the subject, especially when you
> proved that you don't even understand the meaning of
> the words.


Just admit that you're not working on the halting problem and people 
will stop disagreeing with you.

Also:

On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
 > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
 > my reply that you erased.


>
>> Also:
>> 
>> On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>  > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
>>  > my reply that you erased.
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>>> 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: