Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:56:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <1029kjp$1ah2f$5@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1025l2e$aqju$3@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> <10296ad$17nsd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0";
	logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bOMOQ2I5T2jBdYi/I0nk0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VVms+d4vglbC2Hz9s9QCfgLLv48=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-6, 6/10/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10296ad$17nsd$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/10/2025 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-09 16:24:58 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:54 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2025 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:34 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:55 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work with algorithms,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you think that shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There you go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what is meant in this context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not working on the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which you stated only includes the instructions of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> function DDD on multiple occasions (see below),
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
>>>>>>>>>> my reply that you erased.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
>>>>>>>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you admit that that finite string includes the machine 
>>>>>>>>> code of the function DDD, the machine code of the function HHH, 
>>>>>>>>> and the machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the 
>>>>>>>>> OS level, and that address 000015c3 is part of DDD?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I admit that:
>>>>>>>> (a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH,
>>>>>>>> (b) the directly executed DDD() and
>>>>>>>> (c) the directly executed HHH()
>>>>>>>> WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS
>>>>>>>> HHH ABORTS ITS SIMULATION OF DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because this is true it derives conclusive proof
>>>>>>>> that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That people here disagree with self-evident truth
>>>>>>>> seems to indicate that people here are liars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>> proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
>>>>>>>> by understanding its meaning without proof...
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, a non-answer.  I'll take that as a no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And since your HHH doesn't work with algorithms (or their 
>>>>>>> description / specification) as you've admitted, you're not 
>>>>>>> working on the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are far too sloppy in your interpretation of the
>>>>>> meaning of words. Also when I do provide an answer
>>>>>> you simply ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Replying with something other than "yes" or "no" to a yes or no 
>>>>> question is not an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 
> No, you don't. You only force them to point out an error in your
> actual reasoning, which they have aleady done. They have also
> proven that the actual ingnorant one you.
> 

No reviewer has ever pointed out any error in my actual
reasoning. Most attempts to point to any error changed
the words that I said and then rebutted these changed words.
I point out Richard's errors hundreds of times and he never
hears a single word of my corrections.

It seems that some of my reviewers simply don't know enough
about computer science or C programming. They don't know
that they don't know enough, so ignorance squared.

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