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 14:20:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <1027c5c$nc63$2@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025jn5$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <10276pf$ipgg$10@dont-email.me> <10277j5$m30d$1@dont-email.me>
 <10278ai$ipgg$11@dont-email.me> <10279ha$mm0d$2@dont-email.me>
 <1027a5b$ipgg$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a";
	logging-data="766147"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Yfg0xdYNLx0OWDHVcbdhN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rmS7hY0ubeKMcLLWGbKWJ5DCU7k=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-2, 6/9/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1027a5b$ipgg$12@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/9/2025 1:46 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 2:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 1:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:48 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you reply with just the word-for-word quote of
>>>> me saying exactly that I will look at the quote. I
>>>> will not even look at your attempt to change the
>>>> subject.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You said, as quoted below:
>>> * That the machine code of function HHH is not part of the finite 
>>> string input DD / DDD
>>> * That 000015c3 is not an instruction of DDD
>>>
>>
>> No time/date stamp indicates that you are probably lying.
> 
> Note the "as quoted below" part.  As you yourself said:
> 

I am looking for an exact word-for-word quote with
a time and date stamp RIGHT HERE, all of your
misdirection indicates that you have no such thing.

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