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 14:55:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <1027e75$npoo$3@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025n51$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <1027dsg$ipgg$15@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:55:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a";
	logging-data="780056"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/K4MhFf+plXe4kMh/gY7re"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:++fc9epMjWpNbRUrMiWUMUWszs8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-2, 6/9/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1027dsg$ipgg$15@dont-email.me>

On 6/9/2025 2:49 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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:
> 

I already addressed this too.
This seems to prove that you never
pay any attention to anything that I say.

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