Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem
 Proof
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:34:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <1060ppa$168i0$4@dont-email.me>
References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me>
 <eed26ffea811a639a76d0184321c57eafba746cd@i2pn2.org>
 <pI4fQ.147044$gKRf.71824@fx12.ams4> <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me>
 <105lg9k$3v8t8$6@dont-email.me> <bACfQ.684955$W5Jb.69295@fx09.iad>
 <105n1qi$bbj9$2@dont-email.me> <5MKfQ.127468$uM3d.59517@fx39.iad>
 <105obtn$hate$7@dont-email.me> <pXXfQ.4$mj1e.3@fx45.iad>
 <105pn1c$r41b$4@dont-email.me> <105q67b$8o3u$2@dont-email.me>
 <105qngv$v75u$6@dont-email.me> <upCgQ.4507$v9ff.905@fx42.iad>
 <w2MgQ.13226$eHx.5786@fx11.ams4> <106055n$138e1$3@dont-email.me>
 <r6PgQ.31052$4DJ8.2768@fx04.iad> <1060f0m$155c3$1@dont-email.me>
 <9JPgQ.150643$Tc12.40039@fx17.iad> <1060n64$168i0$1@dont-email.me>
 <4rRgQ.31617$PvV.21729@fx45.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 20:34:51 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="361873d11261af9cc1f18e1b6d0d3dd4";
	logging-data="1253952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jMNQ+Jw6vgkLoM+7mUuMs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MdxnD343El6/VGFT9NIus73zoIk=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250725-6, 7/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <4rRgQ.31617$PvV.21729@fx45.iad>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/25/2025 3:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/25/25 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/25/2025 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/25/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/25/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/25/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/25/2025 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:58:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you have just been too stupid to see your error and to morally
>>>>>>>> corrupt to admit it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet another ad hominem attack, you are not very good at this are 
>>>>>>> you Damon?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that he does this to attempt to mask his ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is just the method that you both use to try to mask your lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I point out your stupidity to help people understand where you are 
>>>>> coming from so they don't try to find the logic in your illogical 
>>>>> statements.
>>>>
>>>> Try not using any insults and only rely on correct reasoning.
>>>> When you do this your reasoning errors will be laid bare.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only if you first promise to also stop calling people liars.
>>>
>>> Remember, YOU started it, and refused the offer of a cease-fire.
>>>
>>> You will need to get Fibber to agree to, or I will continue on him.
>>
>> OK I will refrain from calling anyone a liar while
>> I see that this is mutually respected and there is
>> no evidence that the reply is in any way dishonest.
> 
> Since you see anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest that 
> doesn't count.
> 

Disagreeing doesn't count as dishonesty.
Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by
HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty.

> I won't call you a liar unless you say a lie.
> 

The we must also agree that an actual lie only
includes an INTENTIONALLY false statement.

>>
>> For example when I refer to DDD correctly emulated
>> by HHH I mean that one or more instructions of DDD
>> have been emulated by HHH according to the rules
>> of the x86 language. This does include HHH emulating
>> itself when the emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD).
> 
> But that ISN'T the definition of a correct simulation, so the statement 
> is just a LIE.
> 

That HHH emulates the exact sequence of machine code bytes
that it is presented with according to the rules of the x86
language *IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRECT EMULATION*

You cannot possibly refute that with any kind of correct
reasoning. That the emulation must be infinite to be
correct is fucking nuts.


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