Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using
 Finite String Transformations
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:54:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <433fc5c8889ad5f49876b8e5a7ee02ecb42bc88e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me>
 <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me> <vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me> <vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me> <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me> <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtmh1n$2a90$3@dont-email.me> <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me>
 <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me> <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4>
 <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de> <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de> <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:54:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="783950"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3779
Lines: 62

On 4/17/25 2:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2025 6:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2025 1:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
>>>>>> constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
>>
>>>>> Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
>>>>> assertion?  Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is 
>>>>> wrong?
>>
>>>> You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics.  The halting problem has
>>>> been unequivocally proven.  It is a simple theorem, only slightly more
>>>> complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
>>
>>>> We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that.  We're
>>>> talking rigorous mathematics.  We're talking about absolute truth,
>>>> something that Peter Olcott does not understand.  You don't need to 
>>>> join
>>>> him.
>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>
>>
>>> Moronically stupid "rigorous mathematics" that is far
>>> too stupid to know that unless the finite string input
>>> input is transformed by finite string transformation
>>> operations into outputs that you are doing the computer
>>> science stupidly incorrectly.
>>
>> That isn't even a well formed sentence.
>>
>>> All of logic, reasoning and computation boils down to
>>> finite string transformations on inputs deriving outputs.
>>
>> That's a big assertion, one you have not proved.  It is one you can't
>> prove, even were it true, since you don't understand the concept of
>> proof.
>>
> 
> When a categorically exhaustive search is made it is
> self-evident that all computation, logic, and human
> reasoning has as its barest possible essence transforming input
> finite strings into outputs via finite string transformations.

In other words, you admit you don't know what you are talking about, 
because from that ANYTHING could be "correct".

Of course, that fits your idea of logic.


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