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 13:48:31 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <10276pf$ipgg$10@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$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$1@dont-email.me> <102754h$ipgg$8@dont-email.me>
 <10275v1$lo22$1@dont-email.me> <102768b$ipgg$9@dont-email.me>
 <10276fd$lo22$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:48:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4waPqJQ4QpjMQBgx0SxiN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:348FhDfXNZmxVsqSWE13+zYVV68=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10276fd$lo22$2@dont-email.me>

On 6/9/2025 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 12:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have been over this too many times.
>>> Do you really not remember what I said?
>>>
>>
>> I remember that you said that your HHH doesn't take a description / 
>> specification of an algorithm, 
> 
> I never said that

Yes you did, see below.  As you yourself said:

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.


>>> 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.