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 15:59:16 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <1027eej$nuf1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026i2q$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$15@dont-email.me>
 <1027e75$npoo$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:59:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="784865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IHZTsyEPj1sOV+8tTefsn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K9UIqCohXM4Y1730CurbQcGY/98=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1027e75$npoo$3@dont-email.me>

On 6/9/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:

* What the halting problem proofs prove is correct
* DDD is not correctly simulated by HHH
* The simulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to 
the point that HHH aborts
* Your HHH doesn't work with algorithms and has nothing to do with the 
halting problem
* You've been lying about working on the halting problem

And I'll be happy to show where you've admitted each of the above on 
request.