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 15:42:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 223
Message-ID: <1027dfj$ipgg$13@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$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$12@dont-email.me>
 <1027c5c$nc63$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:42:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WAVooMNOlkfWoUQTYLJ0H"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FYrZOT/ZhTvtqBZmhhCDr8A4O3s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1027c5c$nc63$2@dont-email.me>

On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

That you can't be bothered to look down a few lines to get the proof you 
want proves that you're not actually interested in the truth and are 
attempting to misdirect from what you've admitted.

Also:

Let the record show that Peter Olcott trimmed everything below in his 
prior reply.

>> 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.
>> 
>> All you're doing is proving how much you'll lie and shamelessly hide the 
>> evidence to do so.
>> 
>> Further trimming of this will be taken as your official, on-the-record 
>> admission that you are not in fact working on the halting problem and 
>> have been lying all this time that you have.
>> 

Therefore, as per the above criteria:

Let The Record Show

That Peter Olcott

Has *offically* admitted:

That he is *not* working on the halting problem and that he has been 
*lying* all this time that he has.

>>>> Both of those mean that your HHH doesn't take a description / 
>>>> specification of an algorithm, meaning you're not working on the 
>>>> halting problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And again:
>>>>
>>>> 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 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:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========