Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric -- RP
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 07:32:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3c2f42ce6ac98708f4a7acd5642d183b9a31193b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvudut$1ife1$1@dont-email.me> <vvuii0$1j0qo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuk0d$1j6s0$5@dont-email.me> <vvvbtd$1ov7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvvpia$1tcfq$1@dont-email.me> <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvvrhl$1so2t$2@dont-email.me> <vvvtki$1tgam$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvvud5$1so2t$3@dont-email.me> <1000ce4$21dtc$3@dont-email.me>
 <1000q52$24gr3$2@dont-email.me> <1000qss$24jh0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 11:46:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="313410"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1000qss$24jh0$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/13/25 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 8:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 5:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 12:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2025 11:21 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> what PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand 
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeats by both PO and responders...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I 
>>>>>>>>>>> have occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) 
>>>>>>>>>>> would be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko 
>>>>>>>>>>> (in the game go) which prohibits one from returning to the 
>>>>>>>>>>> exact same position. Simply repeating the same objection 
>>>>>>>>>>> after olcott has ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get 
>>>>>>>>>>> the objection the fiftieth time he's not going to get it the 
>>>>>>>>>>> fifty-first time either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this 
>>>>>>>>>>> forum would be considerably shorter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If people would actually address rather than
>>>>>>>>>> dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
>>>>>>>>>> they would see that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his 
>>>>>>>>> dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses 
>>>>>>>>> and refuted many times already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We might call that a disturbing ko.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
>>>>>>> on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
>>>>>>> instead of the actual behavior that the finite
>>>>>>> string of DD specifies:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we 
>>>>>> want to know about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like naive set theory wanted to know
>>>>> about Russell's Paradox until ZFC came along
>>>>> and ruled that questions about Russell's Paradox
>>>>> are based on an incorrect notion of set theory.
>>>>
>>>> But unlike Russell's Paradox, there's nothing wrong with the fact 
>>>> that a halt decider doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure there is. 
>>
>> Nope.  Russell's Paradox was derived from the base axioms of naive set 
>> theory, proving the whole system was inconsistent.
>>
>> In contrast, there is nothing in existing computation theory that 
>> requires that a halt decider exists.
>>
>>> A halt decider doesn't exist
>>> for the same reason that the set of all sets
>>> that do not contain themselves does not exist.
>>> *As defined both were simply wrong-headed ideas*
>>
>> There's nothing wrong-headed about wanting to know if any arbitrary 
>> algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly. 
> 
> Yes there is. I have proven this countless times.
> You ignore this because you are indoctrinated not
> because you have any actual reasoning showing that
> I am wrong.

WHERE have you shown it to be wrong.

> 
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> Requiring HHH to report on behavior other than the
> behavior that its input specifies is exactly stupidly
> the same thing as requiring the above sum() function
> to report the sum of 5 + 7 for sum(3,2).

No, you are just showing that YOUR logic requires HHH to do the error 
you complain about the misdefintion of sum.

HHH must answer about the DDD that it was given, the DDD that calls the 
verison of HHH that does what it does, which is to abort its simulation 
and return

To have HHH look at a diffferent DDD, that uses something else is just 
the error you point out,

Of course you created that error by given HHH an invalid input, that 
would be like giving sum the inputs like sum("Two", "Three") and 
expecting it to return "Five".

HHH's inputs need to be representations of PROGRAMS, which means the 
input itself contains *ALL* the code that input will use.

Your failure just showss that you don't know what you talk about and 
have proven yourself stupid.

> 
> YOU NEVER THINK IT THROUGH YOU MERELY CONTINUE
> TO BASELESSLY SAY THAT I AM WRONG.
> 
No, YOU are just an idiot that projects your own errors on everyone 
else, because you assume everyone else is as stupid as you are.