Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 15:49:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <1027dsg$ipgg$15@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@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$2@dont-email.me> <1027dfj$ipgg$13@dont-email.me>
 <1027dpi$npoo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:49:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VvQo79dZ0poyhMhomEJ6l"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lRSr6KyaOLpY/oWmc5w9V6/tVUw=
In-Reply-To: <1027dpi$npoo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8713

On 6/9/2025 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 2:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Proves that I will not tolerate anything besides
> a direct verbatim quote that is time-and-date
> stamped that 100% exactly proves your claim.
> 
> That you keep insisting on muddying the waters
> with something besides this seems to prove that
> you are dishonest.
> 

About what I'd expect from someone who just admitted to lying about 
working on the halting problem all this time:


On 6/9/2025 3:42 PM, dbush wrote:
 > 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:
 >>>>> 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.
 >>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========