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 15:14:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 209
Message-ID: <1027fbg$o022$2@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026slo$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <1027e6c$ipgg$16@dont-email.me> <1027e8m$npoo$4@dont-email.me>
 <1027eqs$nuf1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:14:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a";
	logging-data="786498"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EoDqh9asHMq4YZaKCeCUs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ENpQ2UiePTgWHvEONY/EeaN0pyI=
In-Reply-To: <1027eqs$nuf1$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-4, 6/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/9/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2025 2:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> 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 
>>
>>
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
>> LIAR
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========