Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Three days from now is the two year anniversary of Ben's
 agreement
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 23:13:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6500466ecda52ff6aca400d5dce50ff8c95d23ba@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me>
 <39f1a350cac0a8431753486526da1c35f458df65@i2pn2.org>
 <ve4aai$2b7jg$1@dont-email.me> <87iktydx8w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vecefu$3rai1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 03:14:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1641971"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vecefu$3rai1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3754
Lines: 55

On 10/11/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 6:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-08 07:09, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>> ... after a short break.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you.
>>>> In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the 
>>>> truth.
>>>
>>> Defence of the truth for whose sake?
>>>
>>> Nobody who matters takes Olcott seriously. There's no reason to 
>>> defend 'the
>>> truth' from him.
>>
>> Quite.  But, worse, I think "defending the truth" is actually
>> "perpetuating the falsehoods" because PO posts simply in order to get
>> attention.  I suspect he has severe NPD -- his self-worth is entirely
>> determined up by the merit of the people he can engage with.  If people
>> stopped replying he'd stop posting. Sure, there would be an "extinction
>> burst" of insults and goading posts to try to get a response, but if
>> everyone held firm he'd have to go someone else for the fix.
>>
> 
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> 
> Thus when H is an emulating termination analyzer that reports
> on whether or not its emulation of its input finite string x86
> machine code P(P) must be aborted H is unequivocally correct.
> 
> Whether or not and how this applies to the halting problem
> with UTM based halt deciders and finite string Turing machine
> descriptions is another different issue.
> 

Except that the DEFINITION of the question of whether or not its 
emulaiton must be aborted is EXACTLY the halting criteria, as, if its 
input, when completely emulated will reach a final state, with the HHH 
that it calls doing that the HHH giving the answer does, then that HHH 
didn't NEED to abort its input, but did so anyway.

Your "logic" of looking at a DIFFERENT DDD that calls a DIFFERENT HHH 
that doesn't abort just proves you don't know what a program is, because 
you are just an ignorant fool that chose to not learn what he is talking 
about.