Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<1027e6c$ipgg$16@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:54:52 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 178 Message-ID: <1027e6c$ipgg$16@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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$2@dont-email.me> <1027dpf$ipgg$14@dont-email.me> <1027e1s$npoo$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:54:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc"; logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Yluc+mqH5SYl0W/RPvDSD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:8cP8AwdFfQIusL9z+cfPPjigiTI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <1027e1s$npoo$2@dont-email.me> On 6/9/2025 3:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/9/2025 2:47 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. >>> >> >> But since I'm feeling generous, > > You will stupidly ignore that I said that > HHH emulates itself emulating DDD. Which it's not allowed to do since the code of function HHH is not part of the input as you've admitted: 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========