Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating
 termination analyzers are supposed to work
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:34:31 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <44a26224149a50c6c6e8180e2b3d6d34c3e60b2f.camel@gmail.com>
References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me> <vgsq2j$v928$1@dont-email.me>
	 <b6e1fdc2e46b780c149c38580f82c6077f29b0a3.camel@gmail.com>
	 <81538e7219ad4830505e67dd6123cc6f117e5b94.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:34:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9622cfba036e43b3b414f6aced5e2c6d";
	logging-data="1003647"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9pNimlYHDEDjpVK+q+b4H"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dHHxRIdotJIRHiPQ4cErWdAgXOA=
In-Reply-To: <81538e7219ad4830505e67dd6123cc6f117e5b94.camel@gmail.com>
Bytes: 3644

On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 21:28 +0800, wij wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 21:09 +0800, wij wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 13:33 +0200, Mikko wrote:
> > > OP says nothing aobut how emulationg termination analyzers are suppos=
ed to
> > > work. I think that is OK. Philosophers may have opinions about that b=
ut
> > > the question is not really relevant for theorieticsl or practical pur=
poses.
> >=20
> > Firstly, the HP is about the H that (If stated in C-function form, inst=
ead of
> > TM) that:
> >=20
> > H(P,P)=3D1 iff P(P) halts.
> > H(P,P)=3D0 iff P(P) does not halts.
> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=20
> > Astray from this, it is not about the Halting Problem. HP is (almost) a=
bout a
> > real machine, whatever logic,formal proof,philosophy,... is not decisiv=
e.
> >=20
> > olcott is a psychotic liar. he reads lots of technical terms and would =
post
> > whatever he searched for you to head-ache (that is one of his trick), a=
nd=C2=A0
> > pretending he is a learned genius. He simply knows nothing.
> > E.g=C2=A0'halt' --> no precise meaning
> > 'Godel's theorem' --> no (significant) contents
> > 'completeness' --> no (significant) contents
> > utm386 --> He can't construct TM for "1+2=3D3". He think his 'utm386' i=
s an OS.
> > C-language --> He needs debugger to understand, and took the complied a=
ssembly=20
> > as 'totology' of his proof.
> > .... too many to list
> > Most of all, olcott does not even understand the logical-IF !!!
> >=20
> > So, don't bother. olcott is a psychotic liar.
> >=20
> > > Anyone who wants to present or sell an emulating termination analyzer=
 should
> > > tell what that particular analyzer actually does.
> >=20
> > That's right.
> > But, in POO logic, olcott is always correct... just not interesting. No=
 need=C2=A0
> > to argue (I though you and others engaged him for reasons).
> >=20
> > The HP simply does not exist. POOH cannot perform the function as state=
d above.
> >=20

Sorry, typo found: The halting decider simply does not exist. POOH cannot p=
erform=C2=A0
the function as stated above.
I am not sensitive to English. There might be more in my previous post.

>=20
> I just think about what I said about olcott, all symptoms might also appl=
icable
> to=C2=A0average people, so, 'idiot' (too stupid) may be more truthful.
>=20