Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 18:41:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7846daba2f8299d82bd7a5cb1f0328f73c25f066@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 00:58:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="251915"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3972
Lines: 71

On 5/13/25 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:
> 
> *DD emulated by HHH according to*
> *the rules of the x86 language*

Nope, the finite string given to the decider represents the program 
whose behaivor (by direct execution) that the decider is to decide on.

That comes directly from the question:

Can we build a decider that will correct determine if the program 
represented by the input to the decider will halt?

Where do you get your meaning from? Your ASS?

> 
> has never been explained. The closest thing to
> reasoning that was provided on this point is
> "that is what textbooks say".
> 

Because the textbooks quote the definition.

Something you don't seem to understand, note, if definitions don't apply 
then your whole concept of true by the meaning of the words is just a 
invalid concept.

Are you sure you want to go there?

You don't get to ignore them one place and enforce them in another, that 
just proves your logic is just inconsistant, and thus broken.