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 20:29:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <1061b1c$189om$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> <10614pa$17qo4$1@dont-email.me>
 <M5WgQ.148313$lwk1.93928@fx15.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 01:29:17 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f6f0403f57a8205f4bde00807733f3a";
	logging-data="1320726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18f5yYYRMwMwmM4w1sfe2vu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+eRWJ9o4RX9N9pQ6v0iaSON2JFU=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250725-6, 7/25/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <M5WgQ.148313$lwk1.93928@fx15.iad>

On 7/25/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/25/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>> The CORRECT SIMULATION of D WILL HALT, BECAUSE you H ultimate has 
>>> been assumed to detect some pattern and stopped.
>>>
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002192] 55         push ebp
>> [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD
>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH
>> [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [000021a2] 5d         pop ebp
>> [000021a3] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>
>> Until you provide the execution trace of DDD emulated
>> by HHH (according to the rules of the x86 language)
>> such that this emulated DDD reaches its own emulated
>> "ret" instruction final halt state
>> *you will be considered a fucking liar*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========