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 17:49:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <10611l6$17eb1$1@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> <1060ppa$168i0$4@dont-email.me>
 <jESgQ.2351$AW.1322@fx02.iad> <1060u8t$172k3$2@dont-email.me>
 <uOTgQ.10822$2Md4.1120@fx48.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:49:14 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="361873d11261af9cc1f18e1b6d0d3dd4";
	logging-data="1292641"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pm2IUl81DsXp9e2wumAMt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gJ8ushOMiwLkHyze3MEV0XkIVvo=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250725-6, 7/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <uOTgQ.10822$2Md4.1120@fx48.iad>

On 7/25/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/25/25 5:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/25/2025 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/25/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, but you call anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't call them a liar just because they disagreed.
>> I called them a liar when they changed the words that
>> I said and then used these changed words as the basis
>> of their rebuttal.
>>
>>>
>>>> Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by
>>>> HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty.
>>>
>>> No, 
>>
>> Yes you are a liar otherwise.
>>
>>> insisting that the criteria *IS* DDD simulated by HHH is the 
>>> dishonest claim, since it is a violation of the definition of halting.
>>>
>>
>> If you want to insist on lying I will not stop calling you a liar.
>>
>>> The only simulation that can be used as a replacement for the direct 
>>> execution is the CORRECT (which means complete with no aborting) 
>>
>> That you expect a correct simulation of a non-terminating
>> input to be infinite is fucking nuts. When one instruction
>> of a non-terminating input is correctly emulated then it
>> is dishonest to conclude that zero instructions were emulated
>> correctly.
>>
>>> SIMULATION of the exact input, which must include in it ALL the code 
>>> used.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Except it doesn't, as, as shown, it also includes statements that are 
>>> just blantently incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Since that is not the way that most people take
>> the meaning of the word your use of this term
>> in that way is libelous.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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*
>>>
>>> No, you miss the requirement that to be correct, it must continue to 
>>> the final state, as that is also part of the x86 language.
>>>
>>
>> That is fucking nuts. Non-terminating inputs cannot
>> reach any final state.
>>
>>> Partial simulations are NOT "correct" when talking about non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> until H correctly determines
>> until H correctly determines
> 
> [[ Two year old style rant trimed ]]
> 
> But H can't "Correctly Determine" that, since it isn't true.
> 

I have told you that 500 times and you keep contradicting it.
That is either dishonestly or brain damage.

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