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 16:15:45 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 321
Message-ID: <1027fdh$nuf1$3@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026ta5$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$3@dont-email.me> <1027eej$nuf1$1@dont-email.me>
 <1027f4i$o022$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:15:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc";
	logging-data="784865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191VkbwgxStgU31TXBEYjya"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kSRnEiQKYx9TQsiaXkZTHU5+k2A=
In-Reply-To: <1027f4i$o022$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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
> 
> I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit.
> 
> Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false
> assumption means incorrect?

And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that 
performs the following mapping:


Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X 
described as <X> with input Y:

A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
following mapping:

(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly


Which is precisely what the proof prove

> 
>> * DDD is not correctly simulated by HHH
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========