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: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 08:40:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4c3518ce593567e538688445186b8e92aab05c94@i2pn2.org>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <ewIZP.135645$vK4b.131815@fx09.ams4>
 <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me> <1017tr1$3drlu$5@dont-email.me>
 <1017ufm$3e54m$6@dont-email.me> <1019vm1$3u8nj$3@dont-email.me>
 <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me> <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me>
 <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me> <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cis6$hv12$1@dont-email.me> <101cjjo$hqle$2@dont-email.me>
 <101cmga$imoa$1@dont-email.me> <101cohp$ikgf$4@dont-email.me>
 <101cppa$j97s$1@dont-email.me> <101cqs1$j925$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cst5$ikgf$5@dont-email.me> <101cu21$k77f$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cuid$j925$2@dont-email.me> <101cv7m$kh09$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cv9m$j925$3@dont-email.me> <101cvh3$kh09$3@dont-email.me>
 <101cvsf$j925$4@dont-email.me> <101dboq$muao$1@dont-email.me>
 <101dlva$ot4g$1@dont-email.me> <101dmfb$otqh$1@dont-email.me>
 <101dn4j$ot4g$2@dont-email.me> <101dtca$u16b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:40:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2688061"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101dtca$u16b$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/30/25 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/30/2025 8:48 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/30/2025 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2025 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/30/2025 2:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 1:48 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/05/2025 18:45, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There aren't many ways to invalidate a proof. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating that the conclusion is false is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficient (because you now have two proofs, each of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which claims that 'I'm right so you're wrong'); one must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack the reasoning or the assumptions (or both) and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show how a flawed step or a flawed assumption invalidates 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the method (and perhaps the conclusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As it happens, Olcott accepts anyway that Turing's 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is correct, so his only beef can be with an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption or a step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's conclusion *is correct within a false assumption*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, the assumption that the following 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements can be met:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is precisely the assumption Turing makes, and he 
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it explicitly, and he makes it with the express intent 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of showing that it cannot be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO ALL THE WORDS THAT I SAY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Noise on the line again, I see. I must call the broadband 
>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's only assumption is overturned by reductio within 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof itself, so that can't be it... which only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaves steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can recall, Olcott's ramblings never go 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within discus- throwing distance of a potentially 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no *INPUT* D to termination analyzer H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly do the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> False. "DDD" is a description/specification of algorithm 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD consisting of the fixed code of the function DDD, the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed code function HHH, and the fixed code of everything 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH calls down to the OS level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is not the computation Turing assumed could exist (for 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the sole purpose of showing that it could not). HHH is a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> hodgepodge of shit C and what looks like more line noise in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly mnemonics. It is not a universal computation such 
>>>>>>>>>>>> as Turing envisaged:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++++
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us suppose that there is such a process; that is to say, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we can invent a machine <D- which, when supplied with 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the S.D of any computing machine i l will test this S.D and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> if i l is circular will mark the S.D with the symbol "u" and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> if it is circle-free will mark it with " s ".
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By "the S.D. of any computing machine" he means the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'standard description' of >>>>any<<<< Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever on the Turing proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input*
>>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input*
>>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input*
>>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i.e. a description of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed 
>>>>>>>>>> code of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>> and the fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS 
>>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Never stops running unless HHH aborts its emulation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, if you change the input so that HHH doesn't abort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never changed the input you freaking moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did exactly what when you hypothesized a different 
>>>>>> implementation of function HHH.  And since function HHH is part of 
>>>>>> the input, you changed the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing the input, hypothetically or otherwise, is not allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be seen by humans that DDD correctly simulated
>>>>> by HHH would never stop running unless aborted.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, if the code of HHH was changed to not abort, DDD 
>>>> would not halt when executed directly.  That changes the input.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>
>>> When a human imagines all of the possibilities
>>> of every HHH that can possibly exist
>>
>> You change the input, 
> 
> I am taking about a set of concepts
> that you hold in your own mind, jackass.
> 
> 

But you imagine them incorrectly, and thus lie to yourself.

Your logic is FULL of imagination, but imagination that isn't 
constrained to what is allowed.

You imagination requires a Trtuh Fairy that can make true statements 
that are false.